United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. NEFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 in January 2018. Many of Plaintiff’s claims
were dismissed on screening in February 2018, and the
Complaint was ordered to be served on Defendants Corizon Inc.
(Corizon), Dominguez, Stieve, Friess, and Aiken, who moved
for summary judgment. The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R) on May 31, 2019, recommending that this Court grant
Defendants’ motions and close this case. The matter is
presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation. 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.
Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration of the Court’s
screening decision. The Court denies the motion for
reconsideration, denies the objections, and issues this
Opinion and Order.
February 2018 Opinion and Order, this Court determined that
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Mathews and Houtz
were “distinct in time, place, and participants from
Plaintiff’s claims against the healthcare Defendants
and, thus, are not properly joined to those claims”
(2/14/18 Op. & Order, ECF No. 4 at PageID.57). On April
15, 2019, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of this
Court’s February 2018 Opinion and Order (ECF No. 47),
requesting this Court “join to this action again
Defendant’s [sic] Mathews and Houtz”
(id. at PageID.467). Plaintiff’s motion is
filed more than one year after the issuance of this
Court’s decision. Moreover, Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a palpable defect by which the Court or the
parties were misled, or that a different disposition must
result. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.5(a) (setting forth
the grounds for motions for reconsideration). For these
reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is properly denied.
delineates seven objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
May 31, 2019 Report and Recommendation. First, Plaintiff
asserts that “the R&R is incorrect, the pleadings
were not properly reviewed, not referenced, the facts were
not properly applied, and the case not properly
construed” (Pl. Objs., ECF No. 59 at PageID.578).
Similarly, in his seventh objection, Plaintiff asserts, in
one sentence, that “[a]ll the pleadings Plaintiff
filed, and the evidence presented provided, defeat summary
judgment and the R&R should be rejected”
(id. at Page.580).
first and seventh objections are properly denied. Asserting
that the Report and Recommendation is “incorrect”
is too broad an assertion to constitute a valid objection to
the Magistrate Judge’s analyses of Defendants’
motions. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b); Miller v.
Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that
“objections disput[ing] the correctness of the
magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify
the findings . . . believed [to be] in error” are too
general). Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with, and
overly general objections to, the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation do not warrant its rejection. In
any event, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s assertion
is belied by the fact that the Magistrate Judge summarized
the relevant allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint,
properly stated the standard for reviewing motions for
summary judgment, and referenced the evidence that Plaintiff
submitted in opposition to the motions for summary judgment.
second objection, Plaintiff argues that his April 8, 2019
affidavits “specifically addressed the grievances
Plaintiff filed, that were not responded to by Grievance
Coordinator Tina Stepp” (Pl. Objs., ECF No. 59 at
PageID.578). Similarly, in his third objection, Plaintiff
argues that the grievances “were not properly
evaluated” (id. at PageID.579). In his fifth
objection, Plaintiff points out that Stepp did not provide
any affidavit “about her refusal to process at least 6
grievances” (id.). In his sixth objection,
Plaintiff asserts, in one sentence without reference to the
Report and Recommendation, that “[w]hen a properly
filed grievance is not timely responded to, the remedies are
exhausted” (id. at PageID.580).
second, third, fifth and sixth objections are properly
denied. Plaintiff’s arguments and accompanying
affidavits were part of his responses to Defendants’
motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 42-43, 48, 50). The
Magistrate Judge thoroughly examined the fifteen grievances
that Plaintiff pursued, concluding that “with the
exception of Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Friess
improperly rescinded his wrist brace accommodation, Plaintiff
has failed to establish that there exists any factual dispute
as to whether he has properly exhausted his claims against 
Defendants [Stieve, Friess or Aiken]” (R&R, ECF No.
58 at PageID.570-575). The Magistrate Judge concluded that
while there was a factual dispute as to whether Plaintiff
exhausted his claim that Defendant Friess improperly
rescinded his wrist brace accommodation, there was no factual
dispute precluding summary judgment in Friess’ favor on
the merits of the claim (id. at PageID.575-576).
Plaintiff does not address-let alone demonstrate error in-the
Magistrate Judge’s alternative merits-based analysis.
In sum, Plaintiff’s second, third, fifth and sixth
objections fail to demonstrate any error in the Magistrate
Judge’s ultimate conclusion that Defendants Stieve,
Aiken and Friess are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
in their favor.
in his fourth objection, Plaintiff asserts, in one sentence,
that grievance LCF 14-06-734-12il exhausted his claim as to
Defendant Dominguez, “not just RN Friess, as the
Magistrate states” (Pl. Objs., ECF No. 59 at
PageID.579; R&R, ECF No. 58 at PageID.573). However, as
Defendant Dominguez points out in response (ECF No. 60 at
PageID.587), Plaintiff’s fourth objection is misplaced
inasmuch as Defendant Dominguez did not move for summary
judgment based on exhaustion but on the merits of
Plaintiff’s claim against him. Plaintiff’s fourth
objection is therefore properly denied.
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. As this Opinion
and Order resolves the last pending claims in this case, 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:
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 59)
are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 58) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions
for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 36 & 44) are GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of