Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kensu v. Borgerding

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 30, 2019

TEMUJIN KENSU, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM BORGERDING, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Temujin Kensu, a Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) prisoner, filed this civil rights action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple MDOC officials and Corizon health care professionals. In a Second Amended Complaint filed October 9, 2017, Mr. Kensu asserts the following claims:

(I) First Amendment retaliation based on post-verdict denial of medical care;
(II) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference;
(III) Violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) based on the denial of natural health supplements;
(IV) Violations of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (“DSHEA”) based on the denial of natural health supplements;
(V) Fourteenth Amendment denial of access to courts;
(VI) First Amendment religious discrimination based on the denial of religious property;
(VII) First Amendment retaliation based on the denial of personal property;
(VIII) First Amendment retaliation based on the issuance of thirty-three tickets;
(IX) Fourteenth Amendment due process violation based on the denial of a fair hearing and the ability to appeal the tickets;
(X) RLUIPA violations based on the deprivation of his religious property;
(XI) Fourteenth Amendment deprivation based on the removal of his property without due process;
(XII) Eight Amendment deliberate indifference based on the conditions forced upon Plaintiff for one night; and,
(XIII) Conspiracy to commit the above violations of Plaintiff’s rights.

(ECF No. 83.) Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment with respect all of Plaintiff’s claims except Counts III, VI-VIII, X, and XII. (ECF Nos. 138, 140.)

         This Court has referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Davis held a hearing with respect to Defendants’ summary judgment motions on April 25, 2019. On August 20, 2019, she issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the MDOC defendants’ motion and grant in part and deny in part the Corizon defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 180.)

         Specifically, Magistrate Judge Davis concludes that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment with respect to all of Plaintiff’s claims, except those for which summary judgment was not sought, see supra, and Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Robert Lacy, D.O. and Jeffrey Bomber, D.O. were deliberately indifferent to his shoulder condition. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days. She warns the parties that the “[f]ailure to file specific objects constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” Timely objections were filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 182) and Drs. Lacy and Bomber (ECF No. 183). Plaintiff filed a response to Drs. Lacy and Bomber’s objections on September 17, 2019. (ECF No. 184.) On the same date, Drs. Lacy and Bomber responded to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 185.)

         Standard ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.