UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK ALLISON,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-10099-BC 

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

 v.

NANCY MARTIN, SAVI KAKANI, ANIL

PRASAD, JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS,

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING AS MOOT

REMAINING PENDING MOTIONS

In his complaint [Dkt. # 1], pro se Plaintiff Derrick Allison alleges claims against Defendants

Nancy Martin, Savi Kakani, Anil Prasad, and John Doe. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the medical

care he received while incarcerated at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan.

Defendant Martin is a quality assurance specialist who reviewed Plaintiff’s grievances regarding his

medical treatment. Defendant Kakani is a physician’s assistant who treated Plaintiff and Defendant

Prasad is a doctor to whom Plaintiff alleges that he sent kites requesting medical attention.

The matter is now before the Court on a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate

Judge Charles E. Binder on June 17, 2009 [Dkt. # 21], regarding both Defendants Prasad and

Kakani’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 14], and Defendant Martin’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 16]. The

magistrate judge concluded that Defendants Prasad and Kakani’s motion to dismiss should be

granted because the facts alleged by Plaintiff do not state a claim for “deliberate indifference” to a

serious medical need. The magistrate judge emphasized that Plaintiff received medical attention for

1:09-cv-10099-TLL-CEB Doc # 33 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 196
-2-

his eczema, but simply disagreed with the speed and type of treatment that he received. The

magistrate judge concluded that Defendant Martin’s motion to dismiss should be granted because

the act of denying a grievance does not create sufficient personal involvement for a claim pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On or about June 26, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation [Dkt. # 22]. On June 29, 2009, Defendants Prasad and Kakani filed a response to

Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. # 23]. On or about July 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed a “response” to

Defendants’ response [Dkt. # 27]. Plaintiff’s objections largely restate his response to Defendants’

motions to dismiss. Nonetheless, Plaintiff clearly enumerated his objections, thus, the Court will

address each objection to the extent that review of the magistrate judge’s findings is appropriate. For

the reasons stated below, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections, adopt the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss, and dismiss the complaint with

prejudice.

Plaintiff’s first objection emphasizes that his eczema was serious enough to cause pain and

bleeding. He asserts that Defendants were sufficiently aware of the seriousness of his condition such

that the treatment they provided amounted to a denial of medication. Plaintiff’s second objection

simply asserts that his factual allegations raise his right to relief beyond the speculative level.

Plaintiff’s third objection contends that Defendant Martin was personally involved in the

circumstances giving rise to his claims because when reviewing his grievances, “she had power, and

duty, to effect change regarding Plaintiff’s serious needs.” Plaintiff’s fourth objection emphasizes

that he is suing because he was denied his constitutional rights, not because he disagreed with the

treatment that he received. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that it was three months before he

1:09-cv-10099-TLL-CEB Doc # 33 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 197
-3-

received medical attention for his eczema and that the treatment he received amounted to no

treatment at all.

A review of the report and recommendation, along with the record, leads to the conclusion

that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. While Plaintiff continues to assert that he does not

merely disagree with the treatment that he received and contends that his constitutional rights were

violated, the record belies his contention. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he had received an

ointment in April 2008, shortly after arriving at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility. Thereafter,

he received a generic version of the ointment, despite complaining that it was not effective. Plaintiff

alleged that Defendant Kakani examined him on July 2, 2008, but that the exam was inadequate, and

then another registered nurse examined him on July 29, 2008. Plaintiff alleged that he was seen

again on August 23, 2008, but that he did not receive any ointment. He was seen again on

September 4, 2008, but did not receive any ointment until after his transfer to another facility on

September 11, 2008. Given Plaintiff’s factual allegations, the magistrate judge correctly concluded

that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that Defendants’ actions were “deliberately indifferent” to a

serious medical need. Additionally, Plaintiff’s objection that Defendant Martin was personally

involved is adequately resolved by the magistrate judge’s analysis on pages seven and eight of the

report and recommendation; and the analysis will not be repeated here.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt # 23] are OVERRULED, and

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt # 21] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants Prasad and Kakani’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 14],

and Defendant Martin’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 16] are GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint [Dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED WITH

1:09-cv-10099-TLL-CEB Doc # 33 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 198
-4-

PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the remaining pending motions [Dkt. # 28, 30] are DENIED

AS MOOT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 2, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on September 2, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-10099-TLL-CEB Doc # 33 Filed 09/02/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 199