UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROMEL DAVIS-HUSSUNG,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 14-14964

Honorable Bernard A. Friedman

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

JEFFREY LEWIS, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT

DEFENDANT WAYNE GROAT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [R. 28]

Plaintiff Romel Davis-Hussung filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 against Wayne Groat, an Administrative Law Examiner (ALE) 

employed by the Michigan Administrative Hearing System, as well as some 

corrections officers, alleging various constitutional violations. Groat moves 

for summary judgment on Davis-Hussung’s claims against him. For the 

following reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Groat’s motion [R. 28]

be GRANTED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Davis-Hussung’s complaint generally alleges violations of his Fifth 

and Eighth Amendment rights related to a sexual misconduct ticket and 

hearing finding, copies of which were later disseminated to other inmates 

2:14-cv-14964-BAF-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 08/31/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 229
2

by staff, resulting in him being stabbed multiple times by other inmates. 

Defendant Groat was the ALE who sustained Davis-Hussung’s 

misconduct ticket after a hearing. Groat moves for summary judgment on 

Davis-Hussung’s due process claim against him, arguing that he is entitled 

to absolute immunity as he was acting in his capacity as a judicial officer. 

Davis-Hussung filed a combined response to this motion and that of the 

MDOC defendants, which does not directly address Groat’s basis for 

dismissal. Instead, Davis-Hussung argues that Groat was biased and 

unprofessional, and disregarded Davis-Hussung’s evidence, including his 

testimony regarding MDOC policy directives. [R. 35, PgID 206]. 

II. ANALYSIS

The Sixth Circuit has held that hearing officers are entitled to 

“absolute immunity from liability with respect to their judicial acts.” Shelly v. 

Johnson, 849 F.2d 228, 229-30 (6th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). For absolute 

immunity to apply, the hearing officer must “possess the independence 

ascribed to members of the judiciary.” Id. at 230. Further, immunity will not 

apply when: (1) the judge took actions outside of his judicial capacity, or (2) 

the judge took actions “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Mireles 

v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (citations omitted). DavisHussang does not argue these exceptions apply, and the facts as recited in

2:14-cv-14964-BAF-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 08/31/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 230
3

his complaint make clear that Groat was, at all relevant times, acting within 

his capacity as a hearing officer. [R. 1, PgID 4-5]. For these reasons, 

Groat is entitled to absolute judicial immunity on Davis-Hussang’s claims 

against him, and his motion for summary judgment should be granted. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that defendant 

Wayne Groat’s motion for summary judgment [R. 28] be GRANTED.

Dated: August 31, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 

72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

2:14-cv-14964-BAF-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 08/31/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 231
4

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

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

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

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 31, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:14-cv-14964-BAF-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 08/31/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 232