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