Randy Marlan Haynes v. Bryan Morrison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RANDY MARLAN HAYNES, #224393, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:23-cv-1111 -v- ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney BRYAN MORRISON, ., ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Haynes, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleges the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights related to his conditions of confinement. The remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42). The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the court grant the motion (ECF No. 54 R&R). Plaintiff filed an objection (ECF No. 55 Obj.). The court will adopt the report and recommendation and will grant Defendants’ motion.

After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. , 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

The Magistrate Judge issued a detailed report outlining the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. The Magistrate Judge recommends finding that three of the five remaining defendants were not personally involved in the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff does not object to this recommendation.

Underlying most of Plaintiff’s claims, he contends that Defendants did not need to keep in him in a segregation cell for an extended period of time because other beds were available at the facility. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to support this assertion with any evidence (R&R at 10 PageID.345). Plaintiff’s objection addresses only this finding. Plaintiff contends at least 50 bunks (100 beds) were available and that he has “first hand knowledge of these bunks” (Obj. PageID.352). The court notes that the Magistrate Judge analyzed the various underlying bases for Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, found problems with each, and recommended dismissing all of them. Plaintiff does not object to any other finding or recommendation.

The court overrules Plaintiff’s objection. Plaintiff does not address the problem identified in the R&R, the lack of evidence to support his assertion. Plaintiff has not presented his alleged personal knowledge as evidence that this court might consider when analyzing the pending motion.

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 54) and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 4, 2025 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge