Summary
This United States District Court order adopts a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims regarding a prison assault. The court also denies plaintiff’s untimely motion to compel discovery, finding that additional evidence would not alter the outcome or satisfy the required legal standard. Plaintiff’s objections to the report are overruled, and her motion for reconsideration is denied as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment on Conner's Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims should be adopted.
- Whether Conner's motion to compel discovery was properly denied because it failed to comply with local rules and was untimely.
- Whether Conner could rely on new arguments and identify additional discovery for the first time in her objections to the report and recommendation.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was proper for McLeod because the record did not show that McLeod knew of and disregarded an excessive risk that Sparks-Ross would assault Conner.
- Summary judgment was proper for Moses and Bilesanmi because Conner did not present evidence that either official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk that Sparks-Ross would assault her.
- The motion to compel was properly denied because Conner failed to attach the discovery requests as required by Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 37.2, filed the motion after the discovery deadline, and served the discovery requests too late for a response.
- De novo review of objections does not permit a party to raise new arguments or issues that were not presented to the magistrate judge.
- A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment must affirmatively identify specific facts and proper evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.
Key quotations
“Under the circumstances, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the demanding deliberate indifference standard.” (PageID.611)
“It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED and Magistrate Judge Morris’s March 18, 2025 report and recommendation (ECF No. 43) is ADOPTED as the order of the court.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Susie Conner alleged that prison officials Carletta McLeod, Stephanie Moses, and Adesola Bilesanmi failed to protect her from an unprovoked assault by another inmate, Faydra Sparks-Ross. The record, including video evidence and Conner's admissions, indicated that the attack was random and unexpected and that McLeod had no prior warning of a substantial risk. Conner also alleged that Moses and Bilesanmi exposed her to an unreasonable risk by allowing Sparks-Ross to be housed in the same unit after the assault, but the record did not show that either official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of renewed assault; Conner was not injured during the less-than-two-week period in which they were housed in the same unit.
Procedural history
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a March 18, 2025 report and recommendation recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and plaintiff's motion to compel be denied. The district court initially adopted the recommendation after determining that no timely objections appeared in the record, but vacated that order after recognizing that plaintiff's objections had been filed timely. After reviewing the objections de novo, the district court overruled them, adopted the report and recommendation, granted summary judgment to defendants, denied the motion to compel, and denied plaintiff's reconsideration motion as moot.