Montrell Darshawn Morgan v. Heidi Washington, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00165
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MONTRELL DARSHAWN MORGAN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-165 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Robert Roundtree, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) corrections officer, filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole claim remaining in this case, an Eighth Amendment failure-to- protect claim arising from a July 29, 2023 incident in Plaintiff’s unit. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court grant the motion and close this case. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which Defendant Roundtree filed a response. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order. According to Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge “cites the proper guiding precedent and chronology of events but failes [sic] to apply the deliberate indifference standard correctly and thus comes to a[n] incorrect conclusion” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 38 at PageID.219). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he was required to show only that Defendant Roundtree was aware of a “substantial risk of inmate attacks,” and he asserts that “[c]learly the defendant was exposed to information concerning the risk by the obviousness of the pervasive risk” (id. at PageID.220, 222). Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit.

The Magistrate Judge expressly rejected this argument, pointing out that an inmate is not permitted to rely on a “general concern” to support an Eighth Amendment claim (R&R, ECF No. 37 at PageID.215, citing Gant v. Campbell, 4 F. App’x 254, 256 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994)). Hence, in reaching her conclusions, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the record to assess the specific risk of harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211–12 (2007). Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 38) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 37) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.

Dated: February 13, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge