Sango #252200 v. Kennsey et al, No. 1:2019cv01047 - Document 32 (W.D. Mich. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 30 ; DENYING defendants' motion for summary judgment 24 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Download PDF
Sango #252200 v. Kennsey et al Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROBERT D. SANGO, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:19-cv-1047 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF UNKNOWN KENNSEY, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion. The matter is presently before the Court on Defendants’ objection 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 the objection has been made. The Court denies the objection and issues this Opinion and Order. In response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff argued that the grievance process was unavailable to him due to threats by Defendants (ECF No. 26), threats that he had described in his Complaint (ECF No. 1) and reiterated in a Declaration accompanying his response (ECF No. 27). After delineating the relevant case authorities and summarizing Plaintiff’s allegations, the Magistrate Judge determined that “Plaintiff’s allegations concern specific occurrences and threats Dockets.Justia.com and are, therefore, distinct from a ‘mere allegation of a generalized fear of retaliation’” (R&R, ECF No. 30 at PageID.212) (citation omitted). Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s exhaustion analysis, arguing that this Court should instead hold that Plaintiff’s allegations “lacked sufficient specificity to render the grievance process unavailable” (Defs.’ Objs., ECF No. 31 at PageID.214-215). Specifically, Defendants emphasize that Plaintiff’s Complaint “does not contain any dates” (id. at PageID.215-216). Defendants’ objection serves to demonstrate their disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusion, but their argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error that would require rejecting the Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge relied on the relevant authorities and reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficiently specific to survive summary judgment. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (ECF No. 31) is DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 30) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: June 21, 2021 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.