Summary
This Report and Recommendation from a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Michigan addresses a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action against correctional staff. The magistrate recommends granting summary judgment and dismissing claims against Nurse Crystal Brown, finding that the allegations regarding denied medical items do not plausibly state violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Fourteenth Amendment, or Eighth Amendment. Additionally, the report recommends dismissing co-defendant Dennis Reynolds sua sponte due to failed service of process and failure to prosecute. If adopted, all claims will be dismissed and the case closed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Moore's ADA claim is plausibly stated
- Whether Moore's Rehabilitation Act claim is plausibly stated
- Whether Moore's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is plausibly stated
- Whether Moore's Eighth Amendment claim is plausibly stated
- Whether summary judgment should be granted on these claims
- Whether Defendant Reynolds should be dismissed for failure to serve
Holdings
- The ADA claim is dismissed because the ADA does not protect against inadequate medical care; the plaintiff alleged no protected disability‑based discrimination.
- The Rehabilitation Act claim is dismissed for the same reason as the ADA claim – it does not create a discrimination claim based solely on denial of medical items.
- The due process claim is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing either a procedural or substantive due process violation.
- The Eighth Amendment claim is dismissed because the alleged injury does not rise to the level of constitutional magnitude and the defendant could not have prevented the injury.
- Summary judgment is granted and all claims against Nurse Brown are dismissed.
- Defendant Reynolds is dismissed sua sponte for failure to timely serve and for failure to prosecute, under FRCP 4(m) and E.D. Mich. Local Rule 41.2.
Key quotations
““Nurse Brown responded that neither 1 ... could ‘supply pillows,’ and she advised Moore to address his concerns with ‘the counselor’ or the ‘ARUS’ as officers working in ‘[c]ustody’ are ‘required’ to ‘honor’ medical details if they have the means to do so.”” (ECF No. 27, PageID.165)
Factual background
While incarcerated, Moore requested an additional pillow and bedroll for medical reasons. Prison staff denied the request. Moore complained in writing to Nurse Brown, who replied that neither she nor health‑care staff could supply pillows and directed him to a counselor, asserting that custodial officers were responsible for providing such items.
Procedural history
Plaintiff Charles Moore filed a civil rights action alleging violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Fourteenth Amendment due process, and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims arising from denial of a pillow and bedroll while incarcerated. Earlier codefendants were dismissed. The plaintiff now moves for summary judgment against Nurse Brown and seeks dismissal of unserved defendant Dennis Reynolds.