Northington v. Abdellatif

GARY NORTHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. BADAWI M. ABDELLATIF, LISA ADRAY, RASHED BASHIR, PATRICK J. GEML,GARY KIRSTEIN, JEFFREY C. STIEVE, EUNICE TAYLOR, HEIDI WASHINGTON,and DANIEL HEYNS. Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-12931

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

April 9, 2020

Paul D. Borman United States District Judge

OPINION & ORDER: (1) REJECTING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE MAJZOUB'S AUGUST 16, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 219); (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 153, 173); and (4) ENJOINING PLAINTIFF FROM FILING ANY ADDITIONAL MOTIONS, PAPERS, OR SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT

I. INTRODUCTION

In this pro se civil rights lawsuit, Plaintiff Gary Northington alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 13, Amended Complaint, PgID 95-112.) On August 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) addressing the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Lisa Adray, Dr. Jeffrey Steive, Eutrilla Taylor, Heidi Washington, Daniel Heyns, and Dr. Gary Kirstein (MDOC Defendants), (ECF No. 173), as well as the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Badawi Abdellatif, M.D., Patrick Geml, P.A., and Rasheed Bashir, M.D. (Corizon Defendants), (ECF No. 153). (ECF No. 219, R&R.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommended that the Court grant both Motions for Summary Judgment and dismiss the case. (Id.)

Now before the Court are Plaintiff Northington's Motion for Enlarged Objections and his 29 objections to Magistrate Judge Majzoub's August 16, 2019 R&R. (ECF No. 232.) The Corizon Defendants timely filed a response (ECF No. 234), and Northington filed a reply (ECF No. 239). The Court denies Northington's Motion for Enlarged Objections because most of Northington's objections are improper. (ECF No. 232.) Some of his objections identify specific, cognizable issues for review, however, and the Court considers those objections properly filed and addresses them on their merits.

Regarding the proper, specific objections, the Court rejects them and finds that Magistrate Judge Majzoub correctly resolved this case in her August 16, 2019 R&R. (ECF No. 219.) Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R, grants summary judgment to all remaining defendants, and dismisses the case. The Court further finds that Plaintiff Northington has repeatedly abused the judicial process by overwhelming this and other courts with non-meritorious lawsuits and duplicative, frivolous motions. The Court therefore enjoins Northington from filing furthermotions in this action and from filing additional suits unless he satisfies the conditions specified below.

II. BACKGROUND

The Court has reviewed the record and finds that Magistrate Judge Majzoub's summary of the factual background of this case in the August 16, 2019 R&R is accurate. (ECF No. 219, R&R, PgID 3786-95.) Northington objects to many of Magistrate Judge Majzoub's factual findings, but, for the reasons stated in the analysis section, the Court rejects his objections and adopts the factual background as stated in the R&R. That section details Plaintiff Northington's medical care from November of 2012 through June of 2016. (Id.) During that time, Northington was treated for respiratory complaints, COPD, asthma, hypertension, chest pain, heat-related dizziness, recurring swelling in his lower legs, an infection in his left leg that required hospitalization, low blood pressure, loss of vision in his right eye, post-nasal drip, was tested for celiac disease, was treated by a dietician who prescribed a low-sodium diet and vegetarian "snack bags," and was ultimately hospitalized for a coronary artery bypass graft. (Id.)

Magistrate Judge Majzoub also summarized the procedural background in the R&R. (ECF No. 219, R&R, PgID 3795-96.) She noted that Northington's claims against Defendants Bobby Echols and Charles Allen were dismissed on May 22, 2017, and that his claims arising at the Kinross and Mound correctional facilities,his claims against Corizon Health, Inc., Prison Health Services, and Correctional Medical Services, his claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment, and RICO, and his claims for money damages against the MDOC Defendants in their official capacities were all dismissed on August 3, 2018. (Id.)

Since the R&R was filed on August 16, 2019 Northington requested and received three extensions of time to file objections, extending the deadline from August 30 to November 15. (ECF No. 224.) Northington then requested a stay of the case because he was scheduled to undergo surgery. (ECF No. 225.) The Court granted the stay on November 6, 2019, and instructed Northington to "contact the Court after his release from the hospital." (Id.)

On January 6, 2020, Northington filed his Notice Regarding Stay and Surgery (ECF No. 230), as well as a table of contents for his objections (ECF No. 231), his Motion for Enlarged Objections (ECF No. 232), and his objections (ECF No. 232). In the Notice Regarding Stay and Surgery, Northington informed the Court that his surgery was postponed. (ECF No. 230.) Northington has since filed three additional motions and two replies. (ECF Nos. 233, 236, 239, 240, 241.) The stay is lifted.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducts a de novo review of the portions of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which a party has filed "specific written objections" in atimely manner. Lyons v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 351 F. Supp. 2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). "The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A general objection, or one that merely restates arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge. An "objection" that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge's determination "without explaining the source of the error" is not a valid objection. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).

Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is "material" for purposes of a summary judgment motion where proof of that fact "would have [the] effect of establishing or refuting one of the essential elements of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties." Midwest Media Prop., L.L.C. v. Symmes Twp., Ohio, 503 F.3d 456, 469 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984)). A dispute over a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is suchthat a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact for trial, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Moran v. Al Basit LLC, 788 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2015). At the same time, the non-moving party must produce enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find in its favor by a preponderance of the evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. "The 'mere possibility' of a factual dispute is not enough." Martin v. Toledo Cardiology Consultants, Inc., 548 F.3d 405, 410 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582 (6th Cir. 1992)). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted).

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for Enlarged Objections (ECF No. 232)

Plaintiff Northington filed a Motion for Enlarged Objections along with a 68-page document containing 29 enumerated objections and 119 pages of exhibits, including an index, for a total of 192 pages. (ECF Nos. 232; 232-1.) In the Eastern District of Michigan, objections must conform with the requirements of Local Rule 7.1, which sets a 25-page limit. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(5) ("LR 7.1 governs the form of objections, responses, and replies."); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(3)(A). Northingtontherefore seeks permission to file 43 extra pages of objections and 119 pages of exhibits in support of those objections. The Court denies Northington's request because the majority of his objections are improper.

Objections to a Magistrate Judge's R&R are necessarily limited to the facts and legal conclusions made in that particular report—a party may not request reconsideration of prior rulings, provide new evidence without leave of court, or raise new claims by filing objections. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 allows parties to file "specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (emphasis added). Further, under Local Rule 72.1, those specific written objections must "specify the part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which a person objects." E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1)(A). These rules reflect the purpose of the Magistrate's Act, which is "to improve access to the federal courts and aid in the efficient administration of justice," by narrowing the focus of the district court to the issues "at the heart of the parties' dispute." Howard, 932 F.2d at 509 (internal citations omitted). Thus, objections should be used to pinpoint any crucial errors made by the Magistrate Judge, not to lodge a general objection to the...