1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

William Passarelli, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Chris Shaw, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

Case No. 14-cv-13655 

Hon. Judith E. Levy 

Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18], GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14], 

DENYING MOTION TO STAY [21], AND DENYING MOTION TO 

COMPEL [22] 

Plaintiff William Passarelli is a prisoner at the Alger Correctional 

Facility in Munising, Michigan. He filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 against defendant Chris Shaw, an officer with the Michigan 

Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), over events that occurred at the 

St. Louis Correctional Facility while plaintiff was incarcerated there. 

Plaintiff’s claim appears to be that the conditions of his confinement 

violated his Eighth Amendment rights; specifically, that defendant “put 

the Plaintiff’s life in great danger when he had given the Plaintiff’s 

5:14-cv-13655-JEL-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 108
2 

information to another inmate.” (Dkt. 1, Compl. 3.) Plaintiff seeks 

$500,000 in damages, termination of defendant’s employment with 

MDOC, and counseling from MDOC. (Id.) 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report 

and Recommendation, issued on June 12, 2015. (Dkt. 18.) Magistrate 

Judge Majzoub recommends the Court grant defendant Chris Shaw’s 

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14). Plaintiff timely filed 

objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 19.) 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt the Report 

and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions of 

this Court. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will accordingly 

be granted. Because this order will close the case, defendant’s pending 

motion to stay discovery (Dkt. 21) and plaintiff’s motion to compel 

discovery (Dkt. 22) will be denied as moot. 

I. Factual Background 

The factual background is fully set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation and is adopted here. 

5:14-cv-13655-JEL-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 109
3 

II. Standard of Review 

Objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

must not be overly general, such as objections that dispute the 

correctness of the report and recommendation but fail to specify 

findings believed to be in error. Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 

(6th Cir. 2006); see also Howard v. Sec’y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th 

Cir. 1991). “The objections must be clear enough to enable the district 

court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” 

Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). 

District courts review de novo those portions of a report and 

recommendation to which a specific objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). “De novo review in these circumstances entails at least a 

review of the evidence that faced the magistrate judge; the Court may 

not act solely on the basis of a report and recommendation.” Spooner v. 

Jackson, 321 F. Supp. 2d 867, 868-69 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 

III. Analysis 

A prisoner bringing a claim based on his conditions of confinement 

must show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the 

prisoner’s health or safety. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32-3 

5:14-cv-13655-JEL-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 110
4 

(1993). Establishing deliberate indifference requires both a showing 

that the condition is an “extreme deprivation,” Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992), and that the defendant “perceived facts from 

which to infer substantial risk to the prisoner, that he did in fact draw 

the inference, and that he then disregarded that risk.” Quigley v. 

Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2013). 

 Plaintiff claims defendant gave plaintiff’s identifying information 

to another inmate in order to “get the Plaintiff assaulted.” (Dkt. 1 at 3.) 

The Magistrate Judge found plaintiff has submitted no evidence 

supporting this allegation. (Dkt. 18, Report & Recommendation 7.) 

Plaintiff objects to this finding on the ground that he “in fact knows” 

that defendant gave plaintiff’s personal information to another inmate, 

in order to cause plaintiff to be assaulted. (Dkt. 19, Objection 1-2.) 

Plaintiff’s assertion that he “in fact knows” this happened is not 

evidence supporting plaintiff’s factual claim that defendant revealed 

plaintiff’s personal information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The 

Magistrate Judge further found plaintiff has failed to provide evidence 

that defendant was aware of any threat to plaintiff’s safety. (Dkt. 18 at 

7-8.) Upon thorough examination of the record, the Court agrees. 

5:14-cv-13655-JEL-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 111
5 

Absent evidence that defendant gave plaintiff’s personal information to 

another inmate, or that defendant knew of a threat to plaintiff’s safety, 

plaintiff’s claim cannot succeed. 

IV. Conclusion 

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

(Dkt. 18) is ADOPTED; 

 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) is 

GRANTED; 

 Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; 

 Defendant’s motion to stay discovery (Dkt. 21) is DENIED as 

moot; and 

 Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 22) is DENIED as 

moot. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2015 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

5:14-cv-13655-JEL-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 112
6 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 3, 2015. 

s/Felicia M. Moses 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

5:14-cv-13655-JEL-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/03/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 113