Ryan v. State of Michigan et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SEAN MICHAEL RYAN,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:22-cv-13002
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
v. 	United States District Judge
Hon. Curtis Ivy, Jr.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al. 	United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO.
99), SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 101) AND
SUMMARILY DISMISSING THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 87)
Plaintiff Sean Michael Ryan (“Ryan”), an inmate in the Michigan Department
of Corrections (“MDOC”), brought this pro se civil rights action alleging Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claims and related state constitutional claims for
conduct occurring while he was housed at the G. Robert Cotton Correction Facility
(“JCF”) from December 19, 2019 to March 12, 2022. See ECF No. 87, PageID.1765.
Ryan is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter. ECF Nos. 2, 9. This case was
originally assigned to the Honorable Sean F. Cox, who referred all pretrial matters
to Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. ECF No. 15. On March 25, 2025, this case was
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 9

2
reassigned from Judge Cox to the undersigned. 	The Court re-referred all pretrial
matters to Judge Ivy. ECF No. 90.
Upon the order of Magistrate Judge Ivy, Ryan filed a Second Amended
Complaint on February 10, 2025, limiting his claims to against Defendants Scott
Holmes, Dion Wright, Alexis Rodgers, Melanie Bale, Victoria Hallet, Frederick
Herro, Kristen Austin, and Charles Jamsen. 	See ECF Nos. 79, PageID.1443, ECF
No. 83, PageID.1482; ECF No. 87. 	Given Ryan’s in forma pauperis status,
Magistrate Judge Ivy screened the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	On September 9, 2025, in a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), Judge Ivy determined that “[w]hile close, . . . most—but not all—of the
individual capacity claims under the Eighth Amendment and Michigan Constitution
survive [the] initial screening without the benefits of adversarial briefing. 	[But]
because Plaintiff fails to state plausible claims against Defendants in their official
capacities, those claims should be DISMISSED.” ECF No. 99, PageID.2232.
At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek
review of his recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court
within 14 days of service of the R&R. Id. at PageID.2252-2253. On September 23,
2025, 	Defendants 	Herro, 	Bale 	and 	Rogers 	(collectively, 	“Defendants”) 	filed
Objections to the R&R. See ECF No. 101. Ryan responded to those objections and
Defendants filed a Reply. See ECF Nos. 103, 104.
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 9

3
Having reviewed the record and considering Defendants’ Objections de novo,
the Court concludes that Defendants’ objections warrant some disagreement with the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 	Accordingly, the Court will ADOPT IN
PART 	the recommended disposition of the R&R (ECF No. 99), 	SUSTAIN
Defendants’ Objections (ECF No. 101) and SUMMARILY DISMISS the Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 87).
I.
Ryan filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which, as instructed,
limited his claims to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims and related
state-law claims that allegedly accrued during his time at the JCF from December
12, 2019 to March 12, 2022. See generally ECF No. 87. The defendants named in
the Complaint were all employees of Corizon and/or Wellpath and provided medical
services to inmates in MDOC. ECF No. 99, PageID.2232. As noted in the R&R:
Plaintiff raises four claims in his SAC. Claims One and Two
allege that Defendants’ refusal to treat his various medical conditions
amounts to deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs
in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the analogous provision of
the Michigan Constitution. Claim Three is essentially a continuation of
Claims One and Two; that is, Plaintiff asserts that because Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, he has been
denied special accommodations needed for him to participate in the
activities of daily prisoner life. Claim Four is a combination of Claims
One and Two—e.g., Defendants violated his constitutional rights
because of their failure to treat his medical ailments. Lastly, because
Plaintiff sues Defendants in their official capacities as well, he alleges
that their unconstitutional deliberate indifference was the result of,
essentially, a “no narcotics” custom or policy.
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 9

4
Id. at PageID.2236-2237 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).
Magistrate Judge Ivy found that while the SAC failed to state official capacity
claims, “… the majority—but not all—of Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims
survive this initial screening.” 	Id. 	at PageID.2239. 	Specifically, the R&R
recommends 	dismissal 	of 	individual 	capacity 	claims 	against 	all 	Defendants
predicated on [Ryan’s] pre-incarceration diagnosis 	(lumbar post 	laminectomy
syndrome) and claims based on Plaintiff’s serious medical condition of “being
totally incapacitated.” 	Id. at PageID.2240-2241. 	It further recommends dismissal
of “the claims based on [Ryan’s] degenerative disc disease at C3- 4, moderate spinal
stenosis at C3-4, effacement of the spinal cord, advanced right peroneal mixed
axonal and demyelinating neuropathy, lumbago, adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder,
paresthesia, cervical radiculopathy, and lumbar radiculopathy” as to Defendant
Herro. 	Id. at PageID.2248. 	Finally, it recommends dismissal of Ryan’s official
capacity claims. Id. at PageID.2252. And recommends that all remaining individual
capacity claims stand. Id.
II.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), if a party objects to a
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the District Judge, in conducting a
de novo review, can “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 9

5
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Objections must be stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted); Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th
Cir. 1986). The Court need not undertake any review of portions of a report to which
no party has objected. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153. However, a de novo review of
proper objections requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate
Judge; and the Court may not act solely on the basis of a Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
III.
Defendants lodge one objection to Magistrate Judge Ivy’s R&R:
Objection 	No. 1: 	The 	report 	and recommendation 	erred 	in
accepting Plaintiff’s collective acts arguments as stating a valid
claim of deliberate indifference.
ECF No. 101, PageID.2260. Defendants argue that Judge Ivy mistakenly accepted
general “collective acts allegations” as a basis of Ryan’s Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claims. 	Id. 	Defendants argue that “Plaintiff must state a
plausible constitutional violation against each individual defendant – the collective
acts of defendants cannot be ascribed to each individual defendant.” 	Id. at
PageID.2261.
Given that Ryan is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his pleadings
liberally. 	Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 	However, even under this
less stringent standard, pro se pleadings remain subject to screening and summary
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 9

6
dismissal. 	“The mandated liberal construction . . . means that if a court can
reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could
prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a complaint to include
claims that were never presented. . . .” Baccus v. Stirling, 2018 WL 8332581, at *1
(D.S.C. Oct. 15, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:18-CV-1880-
JFA-JDA, 2019 WL 978866 (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2019), aff’d, 776 F. App’x 142 (4th
Cir. 2019)). Nor may the Court “‘conjure up unpleaded facts to support conclusory
allegations.’” Williams v. Hall, No. 21-5540, 2022 WL 2966395, at *2 (6th Cir. July
27, 2022) (quoting Perry v. United Parcel Servs., 90 F. App’x 860, 861 (6th Cir.
2004)).
A complaint doesn’t need detailed factual allegations, but it must include
enough facts to suggest a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 	Put differently, complaints must contain enough factual
matter, taken as true, to suggest that the claim is plausible. 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible when the facts allow a
court to reasonably infer that the defendant is responsible for the alleged misconduct.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
After review of the SAC, the Court fails to see what the individual defendants
did as it relates to Ryan’s deliberate indifference claims. In his Response, Ryan notes
that his reference to “Defendants” was not meant to allege collective acts but simply
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 9

7
to shorten and simplify the Complaint to avoid continually writing all defendants
names. 	ECF No. 103, PageID.2271. 	However, the SAC does not include any
specific allegations as to each defendant. 	Magistrate Judge Ivy found that Ryan
“allegedly told Defendants Holmes, Wright, Rodgers, Bale, Hallet, Austin, and
Jamsen of his serious medical conditions which required treatment.” 	See ECF No.
99, PageID.2245. And that as a result it is “fair to infer their awareness of Plaintiff’s
conditions” and “reasonable to conclude that Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s serious
medical conditions.” Id. at 2245-2246. However, the Court is not convinced.
Allegations against Defendants, generally, is not enough to place each
individual on notice of their alleged wrongdoing. 	Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-61
(holding that, to state a claim, a plaintiff must make sufficient allegations to give a
defendant fair notice of the claim). Where a person is named as a defendant without
an allegation of specific conduct, the complaint is subject to dismissal, even under
the liberal construction afforded to pro se complaints. See Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 92 F. App’x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (dismissing complaint where plaintiff
failed to allege how any named defendant was involved in the violation of his rights);
Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002) (dismissing plaintiff’s
claims where the complaint did not allege with any degree of specificity which of
the named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged
violation of rights).
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 7 of 9

8
Therefore, the Court finds the Complaint as alleged is insufficient, even under
the liberal pro se pleading standard, to allege a plausible Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim as against these individual Defendants.
The R&R does recommend dismissal of certain claims against Defendant
Herro because he “treated several of Plaintiff’s conditions, halted that treatment after
Plaintiff reported side effects, and determined that Plaintiff’s preferred treatment was
not indicated…” 	ECF No. 99, PageID.2248. 	Magistrate Judge Ivy reasoned that
Courts cannot second guess the judgment of medical professionals, so Ryan failed
to state a claim as to based on the treatment of his degenerative disc disease at C3-
4, moderate spinal stenosis at C3-4, effacement of the spinal cord, advanced right
peroneal mixed axonal and demyelinating neuropathy, lumbago, adhesive capsulitis
of the shoulder, paresthesia, cervical radiculopathy, and lumbar radiculopathy. 	Id.
Neither party lodged objection to this finding, so the Court will adopt that
recommended disposition.
The 	Court 	notes 	that 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	was 	able 	to 	make 	this
recommendation because the medical records attached to the SAC included this
information. There are similar medical records as to treatment provided by Holmes,
Jamsen, and Austin. 	See ECF No. 87-1, PageID.1936-1954, 1958; ECF No. 87-2,
PageID.1964-1966. But for the same reasons, the Court cannot second guess their
medical judgment and nothing in those records shows a deliberate indifference to
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 8 of 9

9
Ryan’s medical conditions. 	Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 169 (6th Cir.
2011). That Ryan may have “desire[d] for additional or different treatment does not
suffice by itself to support an Eighth Amendment claim.” Mitchell v. Hininger, 553
F. App’x 602, 605 (6th Cir. 2014). Thus, the claims against by Holmes, Jamsen, and
Austin would be subject to dismissal on this ground as well.
Finally, as noted in the R&R, the analogous Michigan Constitution claims are
similarly dismissed because they are treated equally to the Eighth Amendment
claims. Neither party objected to this, and the Court finds the same. Consequently,
the Michigan Constitution claims are also dismissed.
IV.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the recommended disposition of
Magistrate Judge Ivy’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 99). 	Defendants’
Objections (ECF No. 101) are SUSTAINED. And the Second Amended Complaint
is SUMMARILY DISMISSED, under the Court’s obligation to screen pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER THAT CLOSES THE CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2025 	s/Brandy R. McMillion
Detroit, Michigan 	HON. BRANDY R. MC MILLION
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-13002-BRM-CI ECF No. 105, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 9 of 9