-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DEXTER ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. TRUE, Associate Warden in his 

individual capacity, 

ARDETTA MOODY, Unit Manager in her 

individual capacity, 

MATTHEW BURNETT, Case Manager in 

his individual capacity, 

ANDRE MCCLATCHEY, Counselor in his 

individual capacity, 

Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 15-cv-11703 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVID R. GRAND

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [33], ACCEPTING 

THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [28], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [23]

I. INTRODUCTION

Dexter Anderson (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against B. True, Ardetta 

Moody, Matthew Burnett, and Andre McClatchey (“Defendants”) pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971) on May 11, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 

his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing an administrative 

grievance while incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in 

2:15-cv-11703-GAD-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 420
-2- 

Milan, Michigan. Id. This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David R. 

Grand on May 18, 2015. Dkt. No. 6. 

On November 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings, or in the Alternative, to Strike Defendants’ Answer. Dkt. No. 23. The 

Magistrate Court issued a Report and Recommendation on February 26, 2016. Dkt. 

No. 28. Magistrate Judge Grand recommended that the Plaintiff’s motion be 

denied. Plaintiff filed an objection to the report on March 28, 2016. Dkt. No. 33. 

For the reasons discussed herein, the objection is OVERRULED, and Magistrate 

Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the Federal Bureau of Prison 

employees and the Defendants violated his First Amendment rights while Plaintiff 

was incarcerated at the FCI in Milan, Michigan. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint 

that because he filed grievances, the defendants retaliated against him and 

transferred him to another prison in Danbury, CT. Dkt. No. 7, ¶3–4. 

On November 3, 2015, Defendants timely filed an answer to Plaintiff’s 

complaint, denying Plaintiff’s allegations. Dkt. No. 21. On November 27, 2015, in 

the midst of ongoing discovery, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Judgment on 

the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, to Strike Defendants’ Answer. Dkt. No. 23. 

2:15-cv-11703-GAD-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 421
-3- 

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Where a party has objected to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, the Court conducts a de novo review of those portions. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lyons v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 351 F. Supp. 2d 659, 661 (E.D. 

Mich. 2004). 

A. Objection No. 1–4: Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings of genuine issues of material fact. 

Plaintiff’s first four objections can be grouped together as objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s finding that genuine issues of fact exist. All four of the 

objections argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in accepting Defendants’ denials 

as sufficient to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings. These objections 

are without merit. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings may be granted where “no material issue of fact exists and the party 

making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” JP Morgan Chase 

Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation and 

citation omitted). “For the purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all 

well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be 

taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the moving party is 

nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” Id. The Court “ ‘need not’ accept as true 

2:15-cv-11703-GAD-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 422
-4- 

legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences.” Id. at 581–82 (quoting Mixon 

v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999)). 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ denials in their answer are insufficient to 

create a genuine issue of material fact under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Dkt. No. 33 at 3–4 

(Pg. ID No. 264–65) (“Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, summary 

judgment is proper when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). 

However, Plaintiff has not brought a motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff has moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(c). 

While a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment requires more than a mere 

denial of the adverse party’s pleadings, a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the 

pleadings requires the Court to accept the non-moving party’s denials as truth. JC 

Morgan Chase Bank, 510 F.3d at 581. Therefore, Defendants’ denials of Plaintiff’s 

allegations create genuine issues of facts. Accordingly, these objections are 

overruled. 

B. Objection No. 5: The Defendants’ denials fail to address the 

substance of his allegations. 

Plaintiff next objects to the Magistrate Court’s finding that the Defendants’ 

answer sufficiently denied the Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff argues that most of 

2:15-cv-11703-GAD-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 423
-5- 

Defendants’ answers “fail to address the substance of his allegations.” Dkt. No. 33 

at 8 (Pg. ID No. 269). This objection is also without merit. 

The Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). In 

responding to a pleading, “a party must state in short and plain terms its defenses 

to each claim asserted against it; and admit or deny the allegations asserted against 

it by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A), (B). “A denial must fairly 

respond to the substance of the allegation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(2). “A party that 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an 

allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(b)(5). 

As the Magistrate Court noted, the Defendants’ answer clearly meets the 

standard set by Rule 8(b). All of the contested statements in the Defendants’ 

answer either make outright denials, or state that the Defendants lack sufficient 

information to confirm or deny the allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint. See Dkt. No. 

21. Defendants are not required by Rule 8(b) to provide any further information. 

Plaintiff presents no law demonstrating that short and plain statements of denial no 

longer comply with Rule 8. Accordingly, this objection is overruled. 

 

2:15-cv-11703-GAD-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 424
-6- 

C. Objection No. 6: Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s report 

that the Defendants need not establish its “affirmative defenses” at 

this stage. 

Finally, Plaintiff objects to the Report’s finding that the “defendants need 

not establish its ‘affirmative defenses’ at this stage . . .”. Dkt. No. 33 at 8 (Pg. ID 

No. 269). Plaintiff’s objection acknowledges that “defendants need not completely 

establish its affirmative defenses,” but argues that the Magistrate Court erred 

because “defendants have provided nothing to support why the Court should 

consider these affirmative defenses.” This objection is also without merit. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) requires “[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any 

pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required.” 

Defendants have stated their affirmative defenses of qualified immunity and 

exhaustion within their answer, consistent with Rule 12(b) and Rule 7(a). See Dkt. 

No. 21. 

Plaintiff argues that under the allegations in the Complaint, the affirmative 

defenses cannot survive. Dkt. No. 33 at 9 (Pg. ID No. 270). But this argument still 

fails to comprehend that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a 

defendant to prove his theory of the case before discovery has been completed. 

Under Rule 12(b), a plain statement of the affirmative defense is all that is 

necessary. Accordingly, this objection is overruled. 

2:15-cv-11703-GAD-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 425
-7- 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Plaintiff’s Objection [33] is 

OVERRULED, the Magistrate Court’s Report and Recommendation [28] is 

ACCEPTED, and the Plaintiff’s Motion [23] is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 16, 2016 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

Detroit, MI HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

2:15-cv-11703-GAD-DRG Doc # 40 Filed 05/16/16 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 426