Harrison v. NaphCare

1

MATTHEW HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. NAPHCARE et al., Defendants.

No. 22-10187

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 27, 2024

KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS WELLPATH AND NAPHCARE'S OBJECTIONS (ECF NOS. 104, 105), SUSTAINING IN PART DEFENDANT WASHINGTON'S OBJECTION (ECF NO. 103), AND OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 102); ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 101); AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NOS. 68, 69, 73)

SHALINA D. KUMAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

Matthew Harrison, a pro se prisoner, filed this civil rights action against defendants in January 2022.^[1]ECF No. 1. In the consolidated action, Harrison alleges that defendants Wellpath, NaphCare, Wayne County, Aisha Freeman (“Freeman”), and Sheriff Raphael Washington (“Washington”) were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs regarding back pain, mental health medication, and dental issues, and that defendants are liable for state-created danger by placing him with a dangerous cellmate. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 7, Case No. 22-10335. This case was referred to the magistrate judge for all pretrial matters. ECF No. 5.

II. Background

On January 27, 2022, Harrison filed his first complaint. This complaint alleged WCJ failed to adequately treat his back pain, regularly deprived inmates of their evening dose of medication, and housed him with a dangerous cellmate who sexually assaulted him. ECF No. 1 (Harrison I).

On February 14, 2022, Harrison filed another complaint regarding the conditions of his confinement at WCJ alleging he received inadequate dental care. ECF No. 1, Case No. 22-10335 (Harrison II). On May 11, 2022, he filed an amended complaint. Id. ECF No. 6. NaphCare moved to consolidate the two cases (ECF No. 57), and the Court granted the motion on June 30, 2023. ECF No. 61. On August 29, 2023, defendants filed their motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 68, 29, 73. Harrison filed his response (ECF No. 93) to all three motions and defendants timely replied. ECF Nos. 97, 98, 99.

On February 13, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that defendants' motions be granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 101. The R&R recommends that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Harrison's claims regarding medications, back pain, and state-created danger (Harrison I), but not his dental health claims (Harrison II). Id. The R&R also recommends Freeman be granted summary judgment on all claims. Id. All parties filed timely objections. ECF Nos. 102-05.

III. 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 finding or recommendations to which objection is make.” 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 of the 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).

Moreover, objections must be clear so that the district court can discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious. In sum, the objections must be clear and specific enough that the court can squarely address them on the merits. And, when objections are merely perfunctory responses rehashing the same arguments set forth in the original petition, reviewing courts should review a Report and Recommendation for clear error.

Carroll v. Lamour, 2021 WL 1207359, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2021) (internal citations, quotations, and marks omitted). Objections cannot raise new arguments or issues not presented to the magistrate judge. Meddaugh v. Gateway Financial Servc., 601 F.Supp.3d 210, 213 (E.D. Mich. 2022) (citing Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000)).

IV. Objections

A. Harrison II Claims

Harrison alleges that Wellpath, NaphCare, Wayne County, and

Washington were deliberately indifferent to his dental health needs while he was incarcerated at WCJ. Specifically, he contends that due to a WCJ “extraction only” policy^[2]at least five of his teeth became unsalvageable. See ECF No. 111, PageID.1507. The R&R determined that a prison offering extraction of teeth in need only of fillings is not providing constitutionally adequate care. ECF No. 101, PageID.1429 (citing Prichard v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 2021 WL 698190, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2021)). The R&R found that Harrison indisputably had cavities and broken fillings while at WCJ and that WCJ offered only pain medication and tooth extraction. Id. It thus concluded that defendants' motion for summary judgment on Harrison's dental claims must be denied. Id. Wellpath, NaphCare, and Washington object to this recommendation. ECF Nos. 103, 104, 105.

1. Wellpath/NaphCare

Wellpath and NaphCare filed like objections to the recommendation for Harrison's dental claims. ECF Nos. 104, 105. Accordingly, the Court considers them together.

a. Objection 1

Both Wellpath and NaphCare argue that the R&R erred by analyzing Harrison's allegations against them collectively. ECF Nos. 104, 105. Wellpath provided dental care services until September 30, 2021, and NaphCare took over those services on October 1, 2021, but the R&R makes no distinction between the time periods. Id. They contend this error is critical because Harrison “must state a plausible constitutional violation against each individual defendant-the collective acts of defendants cannot be ascribed to each individual defendant.” Id. at 1458, 1467 (citing Reilly v. Vadlamudi, 680 F.3d 617, 626 (6th Cir. 2012)).

This argument is unavailing because, even if the R&R had parsed the providers by their contractual dates of service and considered Wellpath and NaphCare separately, Harrison sufficiently ascribed independent violative conduct to each of them. Harrison alleged that problems with new cavities and fillings arose in 2019 under Wellpath's watch and all the way through 2023, when NaphCare was in charge. ECF No. 7, PageID.44-46; ECF No. 93, PageID.129; ECF No. 68-3, PageID.638-640. Harrison testified at deposition that in June 2021, under Wellpath's watch, he had cavities which could be remedied with fillings. ECF No. 68-3, PageID.636. He also testified that during the five months he was out of WCJ in 2022, he treated with a dentist about five times, addressing the most extensive damage to salvageable teeth first. Id. at PageID.638. He was returned to WCJ before he could revisit that dentist for the fillings he needed. Id. NaphCare did not provide these fillings when he sought dental treatment upon his return to WCJ. Id. This evidence, signifying that Harrison presented with treatable tooth decay before and after NaphCare assumed responsibility for his dental treatment, creates a genuine question of fact as to whether the dental care provided to Harrison by Wellpath and by NaphCare each fell short of constitutional requirements. Accordingly, Wellpath and NaphCare's first objection is overruled.

b. Objection 2

Wellpath and NaphCare's second objection argues that the WCJ extraction-only policy is constitutional on its face. The R&R rejected that contention, finding that the authority cited to support that conclusion only upheld policies that require extraction in lieu of root canal, not extraction instead of filling or re-filling cavities. Because the objection does not contest this finding, it is overruled.

Wellpath and NaphCare also advance identical objections assailing the R&R's conclusion that WCJ's extraction-only policy was unconstitutional as applied. Specifically, they argue that restrictions imposed by COVID-19 limited the dental procedures available at WCJ. ECF Nos. 104, 105. Wellpath's principal brief references COVID-19 restrictions for invasive procedures in May 2021. See ECF No. 73, PageID.846. But neither Wellpath nor NaphCare argued that these restrictions prevented dental care that otherwise would have been provided before advancing that argument in their objections. Accordingly, the Court need not consider this argument because it was never presented to the magistrate judge before she issued the R&R.

Nevertheless, even if Wellpath or NaphCare had preserved their argument by advancing it to the magistrate judge, the argument would fail. As Harrison points out in his response to Wellpath and NaphCare's objection, there is no evidence to support their argument that, but for COVID-19 restrictions, WCJ would have provided fillings or repaired damaged ones. ECF No. 111, PageID.1504. Indeed, defendants have not disputed the contrary evidence that the WCJ dental care policy offers only extraction as a remedy. See ECF No. 68-2.

Nor does COVID-19 and its exigencies automatically excuse WCJ from providing the dental treatment otherwise mandated by constitutional standards of necessary care. As Harrison notes, “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 593 U.S. 14, 19 (2020). If a public health restriction “strike[s] at the very heart” of the Bill of Rights, courts “have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.” Id. at 19-20. Because the magistrate judge was denied the...