UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-12174
v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge DELL BAKER et. al., Honorable David R. Grand Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge _________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART
Plaintiff Marcus Williams is an inmate of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) who was serving his sentence at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF) at all times relevant. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint in the Western District of Michigan, which was transferred to the Eastern District on August 19, 2024. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges several claims arising out of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 including (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, (2) racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (3) deliberate indifference of his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Dell Baker, M. Truxell, M. Kirky, and J., Parsons.1 In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2026, the case and all matters were referred to Magistrate Judge David Grand. On January 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a report (R&R) recommending that this Court
1 The first names for Defendants Truxell, Kirky, and Parsons are unknown and were only represented by their first letter initial in the Complaint. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.1. grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment in part and deny it in part. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff timely objected to Magistrate Judge Grand’s R&R. As explained below, the R&R will be adopted, Plaintiffs’ Objections will be overruled, and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted in part and
denied in part. I. A. Judge Grand neatly summarized the facts of the case as follows: Williams’ complaint arose when Baker fired him from his job working in the prison store. Williams alleges that while at work on May 19, 2023, he told Baker that he had a medical “call out.” Baker said “OK” and Williams left. On May 22, 2025, Baker informed Williams that he “was terminated for going to [his] medical call out, without an itinerary.” On May 23, 2023, Williams filed a grievance, alleging that Baker had lied about the reason for his “fictitious termination.” In response to the grievance, classification director Kirkey told Williams that “quartermaster hours were shortened to reflect no inmates working without staff present,” and that Williams “was removed from [his] assignment to accommodate these changes.” He was also advised that he was “placed back in the quartermaster job pool and will be interviewed when a position becomes available.” But as of December of 2023, Williams was still without a job and Kirkey allegedly “provided another inmate [] with a quartermaster detail [] [that] had been open since November 17, 2023.” In addition to his May 23, 2023, grievance against Baker for the alleged wrongful termination, on May 24, 2023, Williams “wrote a grievance on the warehouse/quartermaster supervisor Truxell [for] allowing me to be wrongfully terminated due to racial discrimination.” In the grievance, Williams alleges that Truxell “look[ed] the other way when he knew I was being racially discriminated against and harassed.” He also alleges that Truxell “failed with his performance to correctly supervise his new employee (Dell) [Baker].” During Inspector McCreery’s interview of Williams to investigate this grievance, Williams alleged that Baker previously used the n-word in front of him and that Baker fired him for racial discrimination. In response to the investigation of the grievance against Truxell, Truxell explained that Williams was fired because he would “just walk off the job without getting permission… was also found with homemade templates for making headbands and using Quartermaster material to make them . . . [and] was directed to help unload a truck and Williams did not do as instructed.” ECF No. 38 at PageID.244–46 (internal citations omitted). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges several § 1983 claims, including (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, (2) racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (3) deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Baker, Truxell, Kirky, and Parsons. See
ECF No. 1 at PageID.16–21. B. On May 5, 2025, the Court referred this case and all matters to Magistrate Judge Grand. ECF No. 13. On June 24, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 22.
Under their Summary Judgment Motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust (1) the racial discrimination claim against Defendant Baker, (2) the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Baker, and (3) all claims against Defendants Kirky or Parsons because they were not named in any grievance. Id. at PageID.83–84. Judge Grand held that the racial discrimination claim against Defendant Baker was exhausted, but that Plaintiff had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies as pertaining to his First Amendment retaliation claim and
the claims against Defendants Kirky and Parsons. ECF No. 38 at PageID.253–259. So, Judge Grand recommended summary judgment as to the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Baker and as to all claims against Defendants Kirky and Parsons. Thus, Defendants Kirky and Parsons would be dismissed from the case. Additionally, under their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argued that Plaintiff had not
pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim for (1) his equal protection claim against Defendant Baker arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Defendant Baker also arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, (3) his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Baker, (4) and any claim against Defendant Truxel. ECF No. 22 at PageID.67–80. Judge Grand recommended that Plaintiff only pleaded facts sufficient to state the
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendant Baker. See ECF No. 38 at PageID.260–62. So, Judge Grand recommended that all other claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. at PageID.262–67. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff timely objected, but only as to the claims against Defendant Kirky. ECF No. 39.
II. A party may object to and seek review of an R&R. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). If a party properly objects, then “[t]he district judge must determine de novo” the part of the R&R to which the objection pertains. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). A party must object timely and with specificity— failure to do so waives any right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151, 155 (1985) (citation omitted); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). Likewise, parties may not “raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented” before the magistrate judge issues the R&R. See Murr v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-12174
v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge DELL BAKER et. al., Honorable David R. Grand Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge _________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART
Plaintiff Marcus Williams is an inmate of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) who was serving his sentence at the Central Michigan Correctional Facility (STF) at all times relevant. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint in the Western District of Michigan, which was transferred to the Eastern District on August 19, 2024. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges several claims arising out of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 including (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, (2) racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (3) deliberate indifference of his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Dell Baker, M. Truxell, M. Kirky, and J., Parsons.1 In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. On May 5, 2026, the case and all matters were referred to Magistrate Judge David Grand. On January 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a report (R&R) recommending that this Court
1 The first names for Defendants Truxell, Kirky, and Parsons are unknown and were only represented by their first letter initial in the Complaint. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.1. grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment in part and deny it in part. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff timely objected to Magistrate Judge Grand’s R&R. As explained below, the R&R will be adopted, Plaintiffs’ Objections will be overruled, and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted in part and
denied in part. I. A. Judge Grand neatly summarized the facts of the case as follows: Williams’ complaint arose when Baker fired him from his job working in the prison store. Williams alleges that while at work on May 19, 2023, he told Baker that he had a medical “call out.” Baker said “OK” and Williams left. On May 22, 2025, Baker informed Williams that he “was terminated for going to [his] medical call out, without an itinerary.” On May 23, 2023, Williams filed a grievance, alleging that Baker had lied about the reason for his “fictitious termination.” In response to the grievance, classification director Kirkey told Williams that “quartermaster hours were shortened to reflect no inmates working without staff present,” and that Williams “was removed from [his] assignment to accommodate these changes.” He was also advised that he was “placed back in the quartermaster job pool and will be interviewed when a position becomes available.” But as of December of 2023, Williams was still without a job and Kirkey allegedly “provided another inmate [] with a quartermaster detail [] [that] had been open since November 17, 2023.” In addition to his May 23, 2023, grievance against Baker for the alleged wrongful termination, on May 24, 2023, Williams “wrote a grievance on the warehouse/quartermaster supervisor Truxell [for] allowing me to be wrongfully terminated due to racial discrimination.” In the grievance, Williams alleges that Truxell “look[ed] the other way when he knew I was being racially discriminated against and harassed.” He also alleges that Truxell “failed with his performance to correctly supervise his new employee (Dell) [Baker].” During Inspector McCreery’s interview of Williams to investigate this grievance, Williams alleged that Baker previously used the n-word in front of him and that Baker fired him for racial discrimination. In response to the investigation of the grievance against Truxell, Truxell explained that Williams was fired because he would “just walk off the job without getting permission… was also found with homemade templates for making headbands and using Quartermaster material to make them . . . [and] was directed to help unload a truck and Williams did not do as instructed.” ECF No. 38 at PageID.244–46 (internal citations omitted). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges several § 1983 claims, including (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, (2) racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (3) deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Baker, Truxell, Kirky, and Parsons. See
ECF No. 1 at PageID.16–21. B. On May 5, 2025, the Court referred this case and all matters to Magistrate Judge Grand. ECF No. 13. On June 24, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 22.
Under their Summary Judgment Motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to exhaust (1) the racial discrimination claim against Defendant Baker, (2) the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Baker, and (3) all claims against Defendants Kirky or Parsons because they were not named in any grievance. Id. at PageID.83–84. Judge Grand held that the racial discrimination claim against Defendant Baker was exhausted, but that Plaintiff had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies as pertaining to his First Amendment retaliation claim and
the claims against Defendants Kirky and Parsons. ECF No. 38 at PageID.253–259. So, Judge Grand recommended summary judgment as to the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Baker and as to all claims against Defendants Kirky and Parsons. Thus, Defendants Kirky and Parsons would be dismissed from the case. Additionally, under their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argued that Plaintiff had not
pleaded facts sufficient to state a claim for (1) his equal protection claim against Defendant Baker arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Defendant Baker also arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, (3) his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Baker, (4) and any claim against Defendant Truxel. ECF No. 22 at PageID.67–80. Judge Grand recommended that Plaintiff only pleaded facts sufficient to state the
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendant Baker. See ECF No. 38 at PageID.260–62. So, Judge Grand recommended that all other claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. at PageID.262–67. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff timely objected, but only as to the claims against Defendant Kirky. ECF No. 39.
II. A party may object to and seek review of an R&R. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). If a party properly objects, then “[t]he district judge must determine de novo” the part of the R&R to which the objection pertains. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). A party must object timely and with specificity— failure to do so waives any right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151, 155 (1985) (citation omitted); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). Likewise, parties may not “raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented” before the magistrate judge issues the R&R. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). When reviewing an R&R de novo, this Court must review at least the evidence the parties presented to the magistrate judge. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the court can accept, reject, or modify the R&R. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). III. When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the court must review de novo those portions of the report to which the party has properly objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). To that end, the court must review at least the evidence that was before the magistrate judge. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing
the evidence, the court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); Peek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 585 F.Supp.3d 1014, 1017–18 (E.D. Mich. 2021). If the court adopts the R&R, then it may simply “state that it engaged in a de novo review of the record and adopts the report and recommendation” without “stat[ing] with specificity what it reviewed.” United States v. Robinson, 366 F. Supp. 2d 498, 505 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002); 12 CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2 (2d ed. 1997)), aff’d, 290 F. App’x 769 (6th Cir. 2008); Fharmacy Recs. v. Nassar, 465 F. App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he district court’s statement that it conducted de novo review is deemed sufficient”).
This Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, Defendants’ Motions, ECF No. 22, and Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. 39; and all other applicable filings on the docket. Having conducted this de novo review, this Court concludes that Judge Grand’s factual conclusions and legal reasoning are correct. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Objections will be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations will be adopted.
IV. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 38, is ADOPTED. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED in part as it pertains to the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Dell Baker, and all claims against Defendants Kirky or Parsons.
Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement, ECF No. 22, is DENIED in part as it pertains to the Fourteenth Amendment racial discrimination claims against Defendant Baker. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED in part as it pertains to the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Defendant Dell Baker, the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Dell Baker, and all claims against
Defendant Truxel. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 22, is DENIED in part as it pertains to the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendant Dell Baker.
Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants Kirky, Parsons, and Truxel are dismissed from the case. This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case. Dated: February 20, 2026 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge