United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
JANET
T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff
filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Many of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed
on screening, and the Complaint was ordered to be served on
Defendants Corizon Health, Inc. (Corizon), Gerlach and
Papendick, who moved for summary judgment. The matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending this Court grant
Defendants’ motion and close this case. The matter is
presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation, to which Defendants filed a
response. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo
consideration of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court
denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff
presents four objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff attaches to his objections a Declaration from
himself dated February 8, 2019 (ECF No. 37-1). The February
8, 2019 Declaration is the same as the December 18, 2018
Declaration that Plaintiff submitted in support of his
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 31-1), with one additional paragraph indicating that
“[a]t no given time did I ever tell any Defendant that
I was doing squats, running or playing basketball. The only
exercise I was doing was walking, until my leg would hurt,
pull-ups, and push-up. I told Dr. Gerlack this” (Decl.
¶ 18, ECF No. 37-1 at PageID.318).
Objection
#1. Plaintiff first argues that the Magistrate
Judge erred in failing to draw “all justifiable
inferences” in his favor and “completely
disregard[ing] anything Plaintiff presented, including
declarations and medical records” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 37
at PageID.300-302). Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit.
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly summarized the allegations in
Plaintiff’s complaint and properly stated the standard
for reviewing motions for summary judgment (R&R, ECF No.
36 at PageID.280-283). Plaintiff attached two exhibits to his
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment:
his December 18, 2018 Declaration (Ex. A, ECF No. 31-1) and
his medical records (Ex. B, ECF No. 31–2). While the
Magistrate Judge referenced in the Report and Recommendation
the set of medical records attached to Defendants’
motion (ECF No. 27), that set contained the documents that
Plaintiff subsequently attached to his response.
Plaintiff’s objection reveals no error by the
Magistrate Judge and is therefore properly denied.
Objection
#2. Next, Plaintiff sets forth a discussion of
the objective and subjective elements of his Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claims and asserts that neither
Papendick nor Gerlach should be dismissed (Pl. Obj., ECF No.
37 at PageID.302-309). However, Plaintiff merely
reiterates-nearly verbatim-the discussion he set forth in his
response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Pl. Resp., ECF No. 31 at PageID.237-243). Plaintiff’s
“objection” fails to identify, let alone
demonstrate, any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s Eighth Amendment analysis or ultimate
conclusion. Plaintiff’s second objection is therefore
properly denied.
Objection
#3. Next, Plaintiff briefly argues that the
Magistrate Judge erred in focusing on “what was done
for him by Defendant[]s but intentionally overlook[ing] what
was not done for him” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 37 at
PageID.309-310). Plaintiff’s argument fails to
demonstrate any factual or legal error by the Magistrate
Judge. Rather, Plaintiff’s argument only serves to
reinforce the legal proposition stated by the Magistrate
Judge that where Plaintiff simply disagrees with the
treatment he received, such disagreement does not implicate
the Eighth Amendment (R&R, ECF No. 36 at PageID.287).
Plaintiff’s third objection is properly denied.
Objection
#4. Last, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate
Judge erred in recommending dismissal of Defendant Corizon
(Pl. Obj., ECF No. 37 at PageID.310). In support of his
assertion, Plaintiff again restates a discussion of case law
that he included in his response to Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 37 at PageID.310-312;
Pl. Resp., ECF No. 31 at PageID.243-246). Plaintiff’s
“objection” fails to identify, let alone
demonstrate, any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or conclusion that Defendant Corizon
is entitled to dismissal. Plaintiff’s fourth objection
is properly denied.
Accordingly,
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will
be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Because this action was
filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of
this decision would not be taken in good faith. See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir.
1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). Therefore:
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 37)
are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 36) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of
this ...