From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexander v. Haas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sep 1, 2016
CASE NO. 14-14629 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 1, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. 14-14629

09-01-2016

MYLES ALEXANDER #862651, Plaintiff, v. RANDALL HAAS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 45), GRANTING DEFENDANTS BROWN-BRANDON AND MARUTIAK'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 35), AND GRANTING DEFENDANT HAAS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 38)

Plaintiff, a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), filed the instant civil rights action against various employees at MDOC's G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility ("Cotton Facility"), where Plaintiff was previously incarcerated. These defendants are Warden Randall Haas, Deputy Wardens Cascelia Brown-Brandon and Fredeane Artis, Administrative Hearing Officer Michael Marutiak, and inspectors James Roth and K. Howard. In short, Plaintiff alleges that Roth and Howard falsely implicated him in a contraband-smuggling incident. Haas, Brown-Brandon, Artis, and Marutiak believed the false representations "to be true and had no reasons to believe that [they] were untrue." (Compl. ¶ 15). Based on Roth's and Howard's false representations, Haas, Brown-Brandon, Artis, and Marutiak "place[d] plaintiff in segregation. Had they known the true facts[,] they would not have taken such action." (Id.). The Court previously issued an order dismissing defendants Roth, Artis, and Howard. Thus, only defendants Haas, Brown-Brandon, and Marutiak remain.

Now before the Court are Brown-Brandon and Marutiak's motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) and Haas's motion to dismiss (Doc. 38). The Court referred the defendants motions to Magistrate Judge Whalen for a report and recommendation ("R&R"). In his R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant both motions. The Magistrate Judge found Brown-Brandon, Marutiak, and Haas all have qualified immunity, because "[b]y Plaintiff's own admission, these Defendants did not knowingly violate any clearly established right, nor did they act unreasonably—either objectively or subjectively—under the circumstances." (R&R at 7). The Magistrate Judge further explained that Plaintiff's claims against Brown-Brandon, Marutiak, and Haas in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R. The R&R specifically stated that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of the R&R. Moreover, the R&R specifically stated that a failure to file objections would constitute a waiver of any further right to appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004). Finding the R&R to be well-reasoned, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the result recommended therein. Accordingly, Brown-Brandon and Marutiak's motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) is GRANTED, and Haas's motion to dismiss (Doc. 38) is also GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 1, 2016

s/George Caram Steeh

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

September 1, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and

also on Myles Danard Alexander #862651,

Carson City Correctional Facility, 10274 Boyer Road,

Carson City, MI 48811.


s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Alexander v. Haas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sep 1, 2016
CASE NO. 14-14629 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 1, 2016)
Case details for

Alexander v. Haas

Case Details

Full title:MYLES ALEXANDER #862651, Plaintiff, v. RANDALL HAAS, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 1, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. 14-14629 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 1, 2016)