Source: https://casetext.com/case/veeder-v-mich-dept-of-corr
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:23:00+00:00

Document:
Veeder v. Mich. Dep&apos;t of Corr.
RANDY VEEDER, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, TRI-CAP, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GARY DAVIS, VICKI ERVIN, JANET COCHRAN, LACROSS, ERIC BURGESS, SANDRA EAGLE, BRIAN MAGIPORA, Defendants.
It appears that Plaintiff is now incarcerated at the Macomb Correctional Facility. See https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=244093 (last visited March 22, 2018); see also Dkt. 18, Plaintiff's notice of change of address.
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris's January 10, 2018 report and recommendation (Dkt. 21), recommending that several Defendants and claims be dismissed from this lawsuit, and that Plaintiff's motion for access to a law library (Dkt. 3), motion to transfer facilities (Dkt. 6) and motion for discovery (Dkt. 7) each be denied. The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections "[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy" of a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a "de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." Id. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. 22). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and the report and recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
Plaintiff raises three objections (Dkt. 22) to Magistrate Judge Morris's recommendations. First, Plaintiff argues that it is improper to dismiss his official capacity claims, as he intended (but failed), to include a claim for "prospective injunctive relief" in his Amended Complaint (Dkt. 22). This objection is not well-taken, because Plaintiff no longer resides in the New Paths or TRI-CAP facilities, and is now incarcerated in the Macomb Correctional Facility. See, e.g., Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 799 (6th Cir. 2009) citing Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding prisoner's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief mooted by his transfer to new facility).
Plaintiff's second objection concerns Magistrate Judge Morris's recommended dismissal of the supervisory Defendants. Plaintiff argues in somewhat conclusory fashion that Defendants as a "whole" approved of the violations he alleges. Plaintiff's objections are unconvincing. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983 lawsuits to impute liability to supervisory personnel, see Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691-95, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978), unless it is shown "that the supervisor encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it." Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). A supervisor's failure to supervise, train or control an employee is not actionable under § 1983, unless the plaintiff shows "the official at least implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct . . ." Hays v. Jefferson County, Ky., 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir. 1982); see also Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) ("[A] supervisory official's failure to supervise, control or train the offending individual is not actionable unless the supervisor either encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.") (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Plaintiff fails to allege any specific conduct by these Defendants that would support a finding that they directly participated in, encouraged, or implicitly authorized or approved the alleged unconstitutional conduct. Because Magistrate Judge Morris's recommendation is sound, these Defendants will be dismissed from this action.
Plaintiff's third and final objection concerns Defendant Lacross. Plaintiff argues that a single incident during a strip search when Defendant Lacross allegedly touched Plaintiff's buttocks gives rise to a constitutional claim, under the Eighth Amendment. Magistrate Judge Morris correctly found that this is not the law. See, e.g., Jackson v. Madery, 158 Fed. App'x. 656, 661-62 (6th Cir. 2005) (guard's rubbing and grabbing the plaintiff's buttocks in a degrading and humiliating manner during a "shakedown" does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment); see also Johnson v. Ward, No. 99-1596, 2000 WL 659354, at *1 (6th Cir. May 11, 2000) (prisoner's claim that a male officer placed his hand on the prisoner's buttock in a sexual manner and made an offensive sexual remark did not meet the objective component of the Eighth Amendment). As such, this objection is also overruled.
For the reasons set forth above, Magistrate Judge Morris's January 10, 2018 report and recommendation (Dkt. 21) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The following Defendants are hereby DISMISSED from this case -- "Ms. Beaman," Janet Cochran, Gary Davis, Vicki Ervin, "Mr. Floyd," "Mr. Lacross," the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), Pamela Nadzan, Heidi Washington, and "Mr. Williams." Plaintiff's official capacity claims against the remaining Defendants are also DISMISSED. Finally, Plaintiff's motion for access to the law library (Dkt. 3), motion to transfer to a facility with a law library (Doc. 6), and motion for discovery (Doc. 7) are each DENIED.
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on March 28, 2018, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.