Burley v. Williams-Ward

• Decision Date: 01 December 2022
• Docket Number: 18-12239
• Parties: EDWARD DONALD BURLEY, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE WILLIAMS-WARD, RANDALL HAAS, GEORGE STEPHENSON, REGINA JENKINS-GRANT, and CARYLON WILLIAMS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

EDWARD DONALD BURLEY, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE WILLIAMS-WARD, RANDALL HAAS, GEORGE STEPHENSON, REGINA JENKINS-GRANT, and CARYLON WILLIAMS, Defendants.

No. 18-12239

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

December 1, 2022

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO 115)

Hon George Caram Steeh, United States District Judge

On September 8, 2022, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti filed a report and recommendation proposing that the court grant in part and deny in part the MDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff Edward Burley a pro se prisoner, additional time to submit objections which he did on October 11, 2022.

With respect to reports and recommendations from magistrate judges, this court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.

In general, Burley alleges that Defendants impeded his right to access the courts by refusing to process his legal mail, and retaliated against him for filing complaints. Burley's access to courts, retaliation, and equal protection claims arise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The magistrate judge recommends that the court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, with certain claims against Michelle Williams-Ward, Carylon Williams, and George Stephenson surviving. ECF No. 115 at PageID 1345-46.

Burley lodges several objections to the report and recommendation, which the court will address in turn. In Objection 1, Burley objects to the characterization of his First Amendment claim as based upon a refusal to process legal mail, noting that his claim encompasses the denial of access to a witness (Christopher Snow) and other violations. The magistrate judge did not limit his review solely to the refusal to process legal mail, however, and did address Burley's claim that he was not provided Snow's contact information. ECF No. 115 at PageID 1308-1309. Burley does not identify any issues that the magistrate judge failed to address and his objection is not well taken.

In Objections 2 and 3, Burley contends that the magistrate judge failed to give liberal construction to his filings, or provide reasonable inferences in his favor, particularly when the magistrate judge deemed certain arguments or claims “unclear.” Although Burley is entitled to a liberal reading of his filings as a pro se litigant, he nonetheless must support his claims with evidence at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings. See Arucan v. Cambridge E. Healthcare/Sava SeniorCare LLC, 347 F.Supp.3d 318, 336 (E.D. Mich. 2018) (“[A] party's status as a pro se litigant does not alter the duty on a summary judgment motion to support the party's factual assertions with admissible evidence.”). It is not the court's role to clarify or construct arguments or evidence in support of a pro se litigant's claims.

In Objection 4, Burley objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that he alleges a Fourteenth Amendment claim only against Michelle Williams-Ward, and argues that he alleged that all of the named defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The magistrate judge determined that the allegations against Carylon Williams, Randall Haas, and George Stephenson were not “sufficiently specific.” ECF No. 115 at PageID 1321 n.8. Burley does not address this finding or explain how the magistrate judge erred.

In Objection 5, Burley argues that his access to courts claim should encompass that he was “chilled” in re-opening his habeas case and that he was prevented from accessing a witness, Christopher Snow. In order to support an access to courts claim, Burley must demonstrate an “actual injury,” that is, Defendants' actions hindered his ability to pursue a non-frivolous claim. See Hadix v. Johnson, 182 F.3d 400, 405 (6th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge determined that the injury resulting from his inability to contact Snow is “not clear” ECF No. 115 at 1309. Indeed, although Burley was unable to take discovery from Snow, he has not articulated the actual injury he suffered as a result. Similarly, the magistrate judge determined that Burley did not present sufficient detail regarding any injury with regard to his habeas case. ECF No 115 at PageID 1313. The magistrate judge did not err in concluding that Burley failed to demonstrate an actual injury, which is his...