UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

AUDREY AIKENS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-12016 

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker 

JOLANDRA MACK, et al., 

 Defendants.

________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

FEBRUARY 21, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 33] 

AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [ECF NOS. 21, 30]

 On June 3, 2015, Plaintiff Audrey Aikens commenced this civil rights action 

against Defendant Jolandra Mack and Defendant Krista Boyd (collectively 

“Defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In her complaint, 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her rights under the Eighth Amendment.1

 

(Id. at Pg ID 5.) The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven 

Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all 

 

1

 Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights 

because “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.” 

(ECF No. 1 at Pg ID 5.) The Eighth Amendment’s protections extend to pretrial 

detainees by operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Rouster v. Cnty. of Saginaw, 749 F.3d 437, 446 (6th Cir. 2014). Because Plaintiff 

has been convicted, the Court analyzes her claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

4:15-cv-12016-LVP-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 03/27/17 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 245
2 

non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and 

recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 7.) 

I. Background 

Defendants Mack and Boyd filed motions for summary judgment on April 

11, 2016 and September 30, 2016, respectively. (ECF Nos. 21 and 30.) On 

February 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report & Recommendation 

(“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motions for summary 

judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. (ECF No. 33.) 

 In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Whalen finds that Defendants are entitled to 

qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that she was entitled to a 

constitutional right that was clearly established to the extent that a reasonable 

person in the Defendant’s position would know that the conduct complained of 

was unlawful. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). Specifically, 

Magistrate Judge Whalen determined that no constitutional rights were violated 

when Plaintiff was denied bathroom facilities while the corrections officers 

completed their rounds. (ECF No. 33 at Pg ID 224.) The magistrate judge also 

found that the corrections officers were not deliberately indifferent when they 

locked her in the utility closet for a short period of time. (Id. at Pg ID 223-24.) 

While recognizing that Plaintiff’s request to use the restroom immediately was 

4:15-cv-12016-LVP-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 03/27/17 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 246
3 

reasonable, Magistrate Judge Whalen found that Defendants’ actions in denying 

Plaintiff access to the bathroom and locking her in the closet during rounds were 

reasonable under the circumstances. (Id. at Pg ID 228.) 

 At the end of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Whalen informs the parties that 

they must file any objections within fourteen days. (Id.) He further advises that 

the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of 

appeal.” (Id., citations omitted). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on March 

13, 2017. (ECF No. 34.) 

II. Standard of Review 

 When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s R&R on a dispositive 

matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report 

or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the 

reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 

944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to 

certain conclusions to an R&R waives any further right to appeal on those issues. 

See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 

1987). Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate 

judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review those 

issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

4:15-cv-12016-LVP-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 03/27/17 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 247
4 

III. Analysis 

 In her objection, Plaintiff raises the same argument she made in her 

opposition brief to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues 

that Defendants Mack and Boyd were “deliberately indifferent to [Plaintiffs] 

urgent need of a toilet inflicting not only pain from her attempt to hold her bodily 

function, but also the emotional pain and humiliation resulting from the officer’s 

denial.” (ECF No. 34 at Pg ID 237.) However, Plaintiff has failed to establish 

that Defendants were aware that she had a medical condition that required near 

immediate bathroom use. Therefore, this Court is unable to determine that the 

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s pain. 

Without a finding of deliberate indifference, Plaintiff’s claim fails. As 

Magistrate Judge Whalen discussed in his R&R, there is no established right for an 

inmate to have immediate access to a bathroom on demand. (ECF No. 33 at Pg ID 

227; see also Abdur-Reheem-X v. McGinnis, 198 F.3d 244 (Table), 1999 WL 

1045069 at *2 (6th Cir. 1999)). Without establishing a violation of a constitutional 

right, Plaintiff is unable to defeat Defendants’ claims for qualified immunity. Thus 

the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Whalen’s recommendation finding that 

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 

 For these reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge 

Whalen’s February 21, 2017 R&R and adopts the recommendations in the R&R. 

4:15-cv-12016-LVP-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 03/27/17 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 248
5 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants Mack and Boyd’s motions for 

summary judgment (ECF Nos. 21, 30) are GRANTED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 27, 2017 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 27, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:15-cv-12016-LVP-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 03/27/17 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 249