McDuff #204491 v. Anderson et al, No. 1:2022cv00020 - Document 98 (W.D. Mich. 2023)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 63 ; granting 46 motion for summary judgment; dismissing without prejudice plaintiff's claims against defendants; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (kml)

Download PDF
McDuff #204491 v. Anderson et al Doc. 98 Case 1:22-cv-00020-JTN-PJG ECF No. 98, PageID.642 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RICHARD HANNABLE MCDUFF, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:22-cv-20 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF PATRICIA WILLARD, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Lori Blue, Jennifer Meyer, S. Smoyer, and Rosemary Villasan filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (ECF No. 46). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 63), recommending that the motion be granted and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Meyer, Blue, Villasan, and Smoyer be dismissed without prejudice. 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. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order. Plaintiff raises several objections to the R&R. He first argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in focusing on his Step I grievances and not considering his grievances at Step II and Step III or any grievance response. He next argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to address Mattox v. Edelman, 851 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2017). He also contends that the Magistrate Judge Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00020-JTN-PJG ECF No. 98, PageID.643 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 2 erred in determining that Plaintiff was required to name each Defendant in his Step I grievance. Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge applied the incorrect summary judgment standard. Plaintiff’s arguments fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. The Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the four grievances at issue. Despite naming several individuals in each grievance at Step I, Plaintiff failed to identify Defendants Meyer, Blue, Villasan, and Smoyer. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the MDOC Policy Directive requires prisoners to name or identify in their Step I grievance the individual against whom the grievance is asserted. See MDOC Policy Directive 03.02.130 ¶ S (Mar. 18, 2019). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that “[p]rison officials had no way of knowing that Plaintiff would later seek to sue persons not named or identified in his grievance” (ECF No. 63 at PageID.475). Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are without merit. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 65) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 63) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Meyer, Blue, Villasan, and Smoyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Meyer, Blue, Villasan, and Smoyer are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: October 2, 2023 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.