Bates v. Winn

Full title: James Robert Bates, Plaintiff, v. O'Bell Thomas Winn, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 16, 2021

Civil 16-14324 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2021)

Opinion

Civil 16-14324

11-16-2021

James Robert Bates, Plaintiff, v. O'Bell Thomas Winn, et al., Defendants.

SEAN F. COX UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

ORDER

ADOPTING 10/28/21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS'

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

SEAN F. COX UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff James Robert Bates filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants O'Bell Thomas Winn, Warden of the Saginaw Correctional Facility in Freeland, Michigan, and James Roth, a now-retired Inspector at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, failed to protect him from assault by fellow inmates in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti for all pretrial proceedings.

After the close of discovery, on March 15, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 28, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommends that this Court grant the motion in part and deny it in part:

The Court should GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 63.) Roth and Winn are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eight Amendment claims against them to the extent that the claims are based on any alleged risk of harm posed by Miller. However, Winn is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against him as it relates to the substantial risk of serious harm

1

posed by Schneider.

(R&R at 19).

The time permitted for the parties to file objections to that Report and Recommendation has passed and no objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the October 28, 2021 Report and Recommendation and ORDERS that Defendants' summary judgment motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court RULES that Roth and Winn are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eight Amendment claims against them to the extent that the claims are based on any alleged risk of harm posed by Miller. However, Winn is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against him as it relates to the substantial risk of serious harm posed by Schneider.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2