United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. MALONEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
civil rights lawsuits filed by Timothy Finley have been
consolidated. Finley is a prisoner under the control of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. The magistrate judge
issued a report recommending disposition of six motions. (ECF
No. 110.) In case number 2:17cv149, the report and
recommendation addresses Defendants' motions for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 59 and 88) and Plaintiff's motion to
strike affidavit (ECF No. 101). In case number 2:17cv159, the
report and recommendation addresses Defendants' motion
for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 58 and 92) and Plaintiff's
motion to strike affidavits (ECF No. 105). Plaintiff filed
objections. (ECF No. 114.)
background, Plaintiff has been diagnosed with bipolar
disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and borderline
personality disorder. He has a history of self-harm. He has
cut himself with razor blades and swallowed pieces of razor
blades. He complains that the noise in the facility has
caused a serious deterioration of his mental health and
psychological stability. He complains that the defendants
have failed to protect him (from himself) and have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
being served with a report and recommendation (R&R)
issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to
file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions
of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Only those
objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review
under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636,
637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff's motions
to strike. Plaintiff did not object to the recommendation.
The Court will deny the two motions to strike affidavits.
Noise Levels - Defendant Napel. Plaintiff raises an Eighth
Amendment claim against Warden Napel arising from the noise
levels at the facility. The magistrate judge recommends
granting the motion for summary judgment as to Napel.
Plaintiff objects. Plaintiff's objection is overruled.
has not established a genuine issue of material fact that the
noise levels pose a pervasive risk of injury to him. More
specifically, Plaintiff has not provided any medical
documentation that the noise levels at the facility have
caused him injury or that he needs a quieter environment to
avoid injury. The medical evidence in the record concerning
Plaintiff's health does not connect a deterioration in
his existing mental health problems and his self-injurious
behavior to the noise levels.
Medical Care - Multiple Defendants. Plaintiff raises an
Eighth Amendment claim concerning the medical care, or lack
thereof, he has received at the facility. The magistrate
judge summarizes both the care received and the involvement
of each defendant in the care. The magistrate judge
recommends granting the motions and dismissing the Eighth
Amendment medical care claims. Plaintiff objects.
Plaintiff's objections are overruled.
Bias. That the magistrate judge extended the time to file a
motion for summary judgment and then recommended granting the
motion and dismissing the claims is not evidence of bias. To
establish bias, Plaintiff must point to some
“extrajudicial source, ” a source outside of the
immediate judicial proceeding. Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 545 (1994).
Defendant Salmi. Plaintiff generally complains about the care
he received from Salmi, asserting that the care was so
ineffectual to his objective medical needs as to demonstrate
deliberate indifference. The Court finds the recommendation
of the magistrate judge factually and legally sound. Salmi
conducted suicide risk evaluations and adjusted the risk
level based on her observations. That Plaintiff was still
able to harm himself does not establish that Salmi's
treatment was deliberately indifferent.
Defendants Mleko, Hedlund, Foster, Steede, and Kimsel. The
magistrate judge summarized the evidence in the record
relevant to Plaintiff's claims against these five
defendants. Plaintiff generally complains these five
individuals did not act fast enough when he was spitting up
blood. Mleko contacted the medical provider and obtained
authorization to take Plaintiff to the hospital. Plaintiff
has not established how the other four defendants were
involved in his care or treatment such that he has a claim
Defendant Samuelson and Falk. Plaintiff has no objection to
the recommendation that the claims against these two
defendants should be dismissed. (PageID.1971.)
Conspiracy Claim - Melko Foster and Hedlund. The magistrate
judge concludes Plaintiff has not identified any overt act
taken in furtherance of a single plan. Plaintiff offers a
general objection without addressing any specific factual
finding or conclusion. (PageID.1971.)Plaintiff's
objection is overruled. The general objection is not
sufficiently specific to merit de novo review.
Failure to Protect / Failure to Provide Medical Care -
Multiple Defendants. Plaintiff generally claims he asked the
various defendants for medical care or they observed his
obvious need for medical care, and they did not provide the
needed medical care. The magistrate judge noted that
Plaintiff received medical attention on each of the days
where Plaintiff claims the defendant failed to protect him or
failed to provide medical care. Plaintiff objects.
Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Plaintiff has not
explained or suggested how he received medical care on the
same days when he alleges a particular defendant ignored his
requests for help. That a particular defendant did not
immediately provide medical attention or did not contact
health care while still in Plaintiff's presence is not
sufficient to survive ...