From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Marriott

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 7, 2014
Civil Action No. 13-cv-10827 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2014)

Summary

explaining that the test for appointment of counsel is not whether an attorney could do a better job

Summary of this case from Dykes-Bey v. Winn

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13-cv-10827

03-07-2014

CURTIS JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT MARRIOTT, et al. Defendants.


HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

MAG. JUDGE CHARLES BINDER


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge Charles Binder's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated February 20, 2014 [docket entry 56]. The R&R recommended that the Court grant defendants' motion for summary judgment [docket entry 30] and deny plaintiff's motions to compel discovery [docket entry 41], appoint counsel [docket entry 44] and commence civil contempt proceedings against defendants [docket entries 48 and 52]. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

In his objections to the R&R, plaintiff maintains that he exhausted his administrative remedies once the prison's Step I grievance coordinator denied his request to file a grievance pursuant to MDOC Policy Directive, 03.02.130 ¶ KK. This assertion directly conflicts with the record. Plaintiff's grievance summary report demonstrates that he submitted eight grievances during the time prison officials placed him on modified access. With respect to only two of these grievances, plaintiff received a rejection letter on the ground that he failed to request a Step I grievance form from the Step I grievance coordinator in violation of the aforementioned policy directive. Thus, plaintiff never exhausted his administrative remedies as he so claims. See Walker v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 128 F. App'x 441, 446-447 (6th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Charles Binder's R&R dated February 20, 2014, is hereby accepted and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's outstanding motions are denied as moot. Dated: March 7, 2014

Detroit, Michigan

__________

BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Jackson v. Marriott

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 7, 2014
Civil Action No. 13-cv-10827 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2014)

explaining that the test for appointment of counsel is not whether an attorney could do a better job

Summary of this case from Dykes-Bey v. Winn
Case details for

Jackson v. Marriott

Case Details

Full title:CURTIS JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT MARRIOTT, et al. Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 7, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 13-cv-10827 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2014)

Citing Cases

Dykes-Bey v. Winn

However, the Court does not base its decision to appoint counsel on whether an attorney can do a better job.…