UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NICHOLAS GUEDRY, #443348

Plaintiff,

v.

DAN RIOPELLE, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Case No. 09-11522

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING

DEFENDANT RIOPELLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Nicholas Guedry, an inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department

of Corrections (“MDOC”), filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that multiple

defendants violated his constitutional rights. Defendant Dan Riopelle subsequently filed

a Motion to Dismiss. The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mark A.

Randon for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), who

recommends that this Court grant Defendant Riopelle’s Motion to Dismiss. See Report

and Recommendation (“R&R”) at 6. Plaintiff filed an objection, which is before the

Court. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

2:09-cv-11522-MOB-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 132
2

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff currently is incarcerated in the Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility in

Ionia, Michigan. According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Riopelle, the Farm Supervisor,

permitted Plaintiff to work on the MDOC farm in conditions that exposed Plaintiff to a

“dangerous infection of ringworm.” (See Compl. at p.4.) Guedry alleges that he

contracted ringworm and a related infection because he lacked a “proper place to wash

up” and “proper safety equipment.” (Id.) Guedry’s repeated requests for medical

treatment were largely ignored, and ultimately, his condition was misdiagnosed by

prison staff. (Id.) As a result, Guedry seeks an award of money damages against

Riopelle, two unidentified nurses, and an unidentified prison officer for violation of his

Eighth Amendment rights. Riopelle moved to dismiss based on Plaintiff's failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Randon’s 

recommendation that the Court dismiss Riopelle. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In cases where a Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and

Recommendation and a party has properly filed objections to it; the district court must

conduct a de novo review of those parts of the R&R to which the party objects. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it is clear

that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent

with the allegations of the complaint. Jones v. City of Carlisle, 3 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir.

1993). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a

right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was

2:09-cv-11522-MOB-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 133
3

committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988); Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810, 814 (6th Cir. 1996). IV. ANAL

YSIS

The MDOC provides prisoners with a procedure for seeking redress for alleged

violations of policy and procedure or unsatisfactory conditions of confinement. Guedry

availed himself of the procedure when, on July 31, 2007, he filed grievance MBP 2007-

08-1574-12d1. The policy dictates that certain information must be included in the

grievance. It instructs that “[t]he issues should be stated briefly and concisely. 

Information provided is to be limited to the facts involving the issue being grieved (i.e.,

who, what, when, where, why, how). Dates, times, places, and names of all those

involved in the issue being grieved are to be included." MDOC Policy Directive

03.02.130 (Doc. No. 10, Ex. A.) 

Plaintiff’s grievance, in its entirety, reads as follows:

I contacted MBP Medical Health Care “urgent care” multiple times. They refused

to treat my conditions resulting [in] scarring on my face, neck, chin, arm & hands. 

I was transferred to JCS in critical condition and was immediatly (sp) taken to

Duane Waters Hospital. The result of MBP healthcare neglect, I am now

permently (sp) scarred. To resolve this issue I would like to be assured MDOC

acknowledges their neglect which caused severe scarring throughout my face,

neck, chin & arms. It also covers all costs to treat the scarred areas after

discharge. In the alternative, there is no undoing the neglect. I seek punitive

damages in the amount no less than $100,000. 

This grievance was pursued through Step III of the applicable grievance

procedure. Defendant Riopelle is not named or described at any step in the grievance

process. Guedry also makes no allegations about a lack of safety equipment or a

proper place to wash up in his grievance form. No other administrative procedures

2:09-cv-11522-MOB-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 134
4

were initiated regarding the allegations in Guedry’s Complaint. (Doc. No. 10, Ex. B and

Doc. No. 11.) 

Although Guedry acknowledges that he did not name or allege any wrongdoing

against Riopelle in the grievance process, he advances several excuses for his failure. 

First, he contends that filing a separate grievance would have been duplicative of issues

already raised and in violation of the policy. Next, Guedry argues that it would have

been futile to file a grievance against each named defendant and that failing to name

Riopelle was “simply a slip of thought due to the other mental and stress pressures that

came with attempting to obtain Justice as again working pro se as a Lay-Person.” (Doc.

No. 22.) Finally, Guedry contends that Rule 15(a), FED. R. CIV. P., favors leave to

amend, and the interests of justice require the Court to allow him to pursue his cause of

action against Riopelle. 

Guedry’s arguments do not overcome the simple fact that he failed to name or

describe Riopelle in his grievance. The policy clearly required him to give information

as to dates, times, places, and names of all those involved in the applicable issue. 

Guedry is required to file a grievance and exhaust his administrative remedies even if

he believes that his grievance would have been futile, time-barred, or rejected. Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001); Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305, 309 (6th Cir.

1999). In this case, Guedry presents no facts or argument that overcome his failure to

exhaust his administrative remedies against Riopelle. 

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a), a prison inmate cannot maintain a civil rights

action challenging prison conditions if he does not first exhaust all available

administrative remedies. This “proper exhaustion” is determined by the inmate’s

2:09-cv-11522-MOB-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 135
5

compliance with the prison grievance procedures. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90

(2006). Although the Supreme Court in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007),

held that the PLRA does not require a prisoner to name all potential defendants in a

grievance, the case is distinguishable from the present action because it was based on

a previous policy version that did not require prisoners to name all persons involved in

their grievance. See generally Jones, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Jones clearly held that “it is

the prisons’s requirements, not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper

exhaustion.” Id. at 217. Here, the policy required the prisoner to name all potential

defendants. Because Guedry has not exhausted his administrative remedies against

Riopelle, he must be dismissed. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court REJECTS Plaintiff’s objections and

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: December 18, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon Plaintiff and counsel of record on this

date by ordinary mail and electronic filing.

 s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

 Case Manager

2:09-cv-11522-MOB-MAR Doc # 28 Filed 12/18/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 136