UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT SADLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-11375

SANDRA MONAHAN, WILLIS TERRILL, HONORABLE AVERN COHN

RANDY GALLUP, and D. ANDISON,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 75)

AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 55)

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Proceeding pro se,

Plaintiff Robert Sadler filed a fifteen count complaint alleging that the Michigan

Department of Corrections (MDOC) and several staff members at the Gus Harrison

Correctional Facility (ARF) violated his constitutional rights. The matter was referred to

a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. As will be explained, the remaining

defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued

a report and recommendation (MJRR) that the motion be granted in part and denied in

part. Before the Court are the parties’ objections to the MJRR. For the reasons that

follow, the objections will be overruled, the MJRR will be adopted, and defendants’

motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

2:09-cv-11375-AC-MAR Doc # 81 Filed 06/16/11 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 646
2

II.

The MJRR sets for the background of this case. Briefly, plaintiff’s claims against

the MDOC, Thomas Bell and Virgil Webb were dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

(Doc.. 4). This left Sandra Monahan (Monahan), Willis Terrill (Terrill), Randy Gallup

(“Gallup”) (collectively referred to as “defendants”) and D. Andison as the remaining

defendants. Defendants subsequently filed their first motion for summary judgment,

which was granted in part and denied in part, leaving the complaint to include the

following five claims:

1. Plaintiff’s claim that Monahan denied him a properly ventilated cell while in the

Administrative Segregation Unit (ADSEG).

2. Plaintiff’s claim that Terrill was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by

hiding his wheelchair.

3. Plaintiff’s claim that Gallup and Terrill were involved in a contraband razor

blade

being placed in his wheelchair.

4. Plaintiff’s claim that Gallup retaliated against him by confiscating prisoner

appliances telling the prisoners he was doing so because “plaintiff writes

grievances.”

5. Plaintiff’s claim that Gallup and Terrill conspired to violate his constitutional

rights as set forth above.

(Doc. 28). 

The parties then engaged in discovery limited to these claims. Defendants then

filed a second motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge, in a thorough

going analysis, recommends that defendants’ motion should be granted with respect to

the following three claims:

1. Plaintiff’s claim that Terrill was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by

hiding his wheelchair.

2:09-cv-11375-AC-MAR Doc # 81 Filed 06/16/11 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 647
3

2. Plaintiff’s claim that Gallup and Terrill were involved in a contraband razor

blade being placed in his wheelchair, and

3. Plaintiff’s claim that Gallup and Terrill conspired to violate his constitutional

rights.

The magistrate judge also recommends that the motion be denied as to the

following two claims:

1. Plaintiff’s claim that Monahan denied him a properly ventilated cell while in the

ADSEG and

2. Plaintiff’s claim that Gallup retaliated against him by confiscating prisoner

appliances telling the prisoners he was doing so because “plaintiff writes

grievances.”

Finally, the magistrate judge recommends that Andison be dismissed for nonservice. 

III.

A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

district "court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate" judge. Id. The requirement of de novo

review “is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution

mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life

tenure.” United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985).

A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously

presented, is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the

magistrate judge. An “objection” that does nothing more than state a disagreement with

a magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been

2:09-cv-11375-AC-MAR Doc # 81 Filed 06/16/11 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 648
4

presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context. Howard v.

Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991) (“It is arguable in

this case that Howard’s counsel did not file objections at all.... [I]t is hard to see how a

district court reading [the ‘objections’] would know what Howard thought the magistrate

had done wrong.”).

IV.

As an initial matter, plaintiff has not objected to the dismissal of Andison for lack

of service. As such, no further discussion on this point is necessary.

Regarding the objections, plaintiff objects to the dismissal of his three claims and

defendants object to the continuation of plaintiff’s claims against Monahan and Gallup. 

Having carefully reviewed the objections in light of the record, the Court agrees with the

magistrate judge’s recommendations. Nothing in either parties’ objections convinces

the Court otherwise. Plaintiff’s objections essentially repeat the arguments considered

and rejected by the magistrate judge. Defendants’ objections effectively ask the Court

to view the evidence in a light most favorable to them which is inappropriate on their

motion for summary judgment. As the magistrate judge carefully explained, there are

factual disputes with respect to plaintiff’s claim regarding his cell against Monahan and

his retaliation claim against Gallup.

V.

For the reasons stated above, the MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and

conclusions of the Court. Andison is DISMISSED under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4m. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART. Plaintiff’s claims against Terrill are DISMISSED. 

2:09-cv-11375-AC-MAR Doc # 81 Filed 06/16/11 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 649
5

Plaintiff’s claim against Monahan regarding his cell continues. Plaintiff’s

retaliation claim against Gallup continues; all other claims against Gallup are

DISMISSED. In other words, the following claims remain:

1. Plaintiff’s claim that Monahan denied him a properly ventilated cell while in the

ADSEG and

2. Plaintiff’s claim that Gallup retaliated against him by confiscating prisoner

appliances telling the prisoners he was doing so because “plaintiff writes

grievances.”

The Court will enter a pretrial order to move the case to trial on these claims.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 16, 2011 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Robert Sadler, 

147503, Macomb Correctional Facility, 34625 26 Mile Road, New Haven, MI 48048 and

the attorneys of record on this date, June 16, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-11375-AC-MAR Doc # 81 Filed 06/16/11 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 650