Houghtaling #302129 v. Siwanowicz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
R OBERT HOUGHTALING , #302129, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:24-cv-263
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
J USTIN SIWANOWICZ, 	)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Houghtaling, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, filed a verified complaint alleging Defendant Siwanowicz violated Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment rights. 	Counsel filed an appearance and moved for leave to file an
amended complaint, which the court granted. 	The amended complaint pleads an Eighth
Amendment failure to protect claim and a claim for gross negligence (ECF No. 47).
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49). The Magistrate Judge
issued a report recommending the court grant the motion (ECF No. 59). 	Plaintiff filed
objections (ECF No. 60). 	Defendant also filed objections (ECF No. 61). 	The court will
adopt the report and recommendation.
I.
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. §
Case 1:24-cv-00263-PLM-PJG ECF No. 63, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 1
of 5

2
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.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
II.
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff established a genuine issue of material
fact for the objective prong of a deliberate indifferent / failure to protect Eighth Amendment
claim (R&R at 5-6 PageID.729-30). The Magistrate Judge, however, found that Plaintiff did
not establish a genuine issue of material fact for the subjective prong (
id. at 7-10 PageID.731-
34).
A. Defendant’s Objection
The Magistrate Judge found that a prisoner satisfies the objective prong by establishing
that prison officials were aware of a substantial risk of harm to a particular prisoner even if
the officials were unaware of who might commit the assault (R&R at 6 PageID.730).
Defendant objects and explains that the Magistrate Judge relied on an unpublished
opinion. Defendant contends that the individual who interviewed Plaintiff, Goostrey, about
the alleged threats was unable to substantiate any risk to Plaintiff.
The court overrules Defendant’s objection. While the Magistrate Judge did cite an
unpublished opinion, that opinion (as explained in the R&R), cited a published case for the
relevant statement concerning the objective test.
	See Greene v. Bowles, 361 F.3d 290, 294
(6th Cir. 2004). While the MDOC (Goostrey) concluded that a particular threat to Plaintiff’s
life could not be confirmed, he did conclude that “a threat against his life could be a real
possibility” (ECF No. 50-2 PageID.417). Goostrey recommended Plaintiff be placed in the
Case 1:24-cv-00263-PLM-PJG ECF No. 63, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 2
of 5

3
CHP (confinement pending hearing) unit (ECF No. 53-1 Goostrey Dep. at 58 PageID.666).
And prison officials did place Plaintiff in CPH “for his protection” (
id.). 	Viewing this
evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he met the objective prong.
B. Plaintiff’s Objection
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff did not establish a genuine issue of
material fact for the subjective prong of his Eighth Amendment claim. The Magistrate Judge
found that the evidence did not show that Defendant failed to reasonably respond to a risk
to Plaintiff of which Defendant was aware (R&R at 8 PageID.732).
Plaintiff objects. On page 11 of the objection, Plaintiff argues that the
evidence demonstrates that Defendant knew Plaintiff was in protective custody
due to a credible threat on his life, expressed personal animus toward Plaintiff
on multiple occasions, was warned directly by Plaintiff of the immediate danger
when she left his door open, and consciously chose to ignore that warning by
abandoning her post.
(ECF No. 60 PageID.747). 	Plaintiff largely repeats this same argument on page 14 (
id.
PageID.750). The court has endeavored to address these concerns.
1. Defendant’s Knowledge
Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence that Defendant knew Plaintiff was in
protective custody due to a credible threat on his life. At best, Defendant knew Plaintiff was
placed in CHP for protective reasons (Goostrey Dep. at 59 PageID.667). Plaintiff does not
identify any evidence in the record to show that Defendant had any additional knowledge.
On page 4 of the objection, Plaintiff contends that “Houghtaling told Defendant he faced a
credible threat from the Gangster Disciples gang due to his cooperation with authorities”
(ECF No. 60 PageID.740). Plaintiff cites his response to the motion for summary judgment
Case 1:24-cv-00263-PLM-PJG ECF No. 63, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 3
of 5

4
(ECF No. 52 PageID.576). On that page, Plaintiff alleges he told Goostrey about the threat,
not Defendant. Plaintiff also cites his initial complaint (ECF No. 1 PageID.5-6). Those two
pages do not contain any allegation to support the factual assertion in Plaintiff’s objection. 1
Defendant testified that she had no knowledge of what the potential threat was against
Plaintiff that justified his placement in CHP (ECF No. 50-8 Def. Dep. at 20-21 PageID.502-
02). 	The court cannot find any other factual allegations in the objection purporting to
support the allegation that Defendant was aware of a threat to Plaintiff’s life. 	Plaintiff’s
objection does not establish a factual or legal error in the R&R.
2. Danger Resulting from the Open Door
The record does not support Plaintiff’s assertion that he warned Defendant of the
danger posed by leaving the cell door open. Plaintiff addresses this issue on page 8 and 9
(PageID.744-45) of his objection. The citations to the record in the relevant paragraph do
not support Plaintiff’s assertions. 	Plaintiff did testify that he asked Defendant to shut his
door because he was in protective custody (ECF No. 52-7 Pl. Dep. at 30 PageID.602; at 73
PageID.607). 	Plaintiff’s request and his statement that he was on protective custody does
not permit the inference necessary to create a genuine issue of material fact for the subjective
prong. This evidence does not permit the inference that Defendant had knowledge of any
particular threat to Plaintiff. 	Courts have recognized that prisons are dangerous places for
1
The initial complaint has no evidentiary value at this point in the litigation. When a plaintiff
files an amended complaint, the initial complaint becomes a “nullity” and no longer serves any
function in the lawsuit.
	See Bare v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 22-5557, 2023 WL 395026, at *2
(6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2023) (citing
B&H Med., LLC v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 267-68 n.8 (6th
Cir. 2008)). The word “nullity” means “something that is legally void.” Black’s Law Dictionary (8th
ed. 1999).
Case 1:24-cv-00263-PLM-PJG ECF No. 63, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 4
of 5

5
inmates.
Spear v. Sowders, 71 F.3d 626, 630 (6th Cir. 1995) (en banc). As a result, for the
subjective prong, a plaintiff must show more than knowledge of the general risk of violence
posed by other inmates.
	See Burnley v. Evans, 249 F. App’x 492, 494 (8th Cir. 2007).
Defendant’s decision not to close the cell door may constitute negligence but it does not
demonstrate a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Indeed, the open door did present
an opportunity for another inmate to attack Plaintiff. But that outcome does not permit the
inference that Defendant was aware of a threat to Plaintiff and failed to act on that threat by
leaving the door open.
3. Animus Towards Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s evidence of Defendant’s animus towards him does not establish a basis to
reject the recommendations in the R&R. 	Without evidence that Defendant had any
knowledge of a threat to Plaintiff, her animus towards Plaintiff does not create a genuine
issue of material fact for an Eighth Amendment claim.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 59) and
GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismisses Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim (ECF No. 49). The court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
state law claim and dismisses that claim without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	December 9, 2025 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00263-PLM-PJG ECF No. 63, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 5
of 5