Klevering #522230 v. Unknown Party #1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL BRUCE KLEVERING,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN PARTY #1, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-1225
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in November
2024 against Corrections Officer Christopher Moe and three unknown parties. On April 25, 2025,
Defendant Moe filed a motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s alleged failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies. 	Plaintiff did not timely file a response to the motion. The
matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on
January 20, 2026, recommending that this Court grant the motion for summary judgment and
dismiss this lawsuit without prejudice. 	On January 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response to the
motion for summary judgment and moved for appointment of counsel. 	On February 9, 2026,
Plaintiff also filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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 Plaintiff’s motion and objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Case 1:24-cv-01225-JMB-RSK ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/16/26 Page 1
of 3

2
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the record and concluded that Defendant Moe
met his burden to show that there is no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to exhaustion.
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that there is “no evidence” that Plaintiff exhausted
any grievances against Defendant Moe before filing his Complaint where the only identified
grievance, which was rejected at Step I as untimely, does not identify Defendant Moe (R&R, ECF
No. 22 at PageID.111–112, referencing Grievance 136 [ECF No. 13-3]).
In his objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff asserts that “he did attempt
to resolve this issue beforehand [and] therefore he met the requirements for exhaustion” (ECF No.
25 at PageID.120). In his late response to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff asserts that
he “can show the Court that he filed this grievance with his copy” (ECF No. 23 at PageID.114–
115). 	Plaintiff further indicates that resolution of the grievance was “based on something that
wasn’t true” (id.).
Plaintiff’s submissions fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Notably, Plaintiff wholly fails to address—let alone reveal error
in—the basis for dismissal discussed by the Magistrate Judge, to wit: that Plaintiff did not identify
Defendant Moe in the grievance. 	See R&R, ECF No. 22 at PageID.111, citing MDOC Policy
Directive 03.02.130, ¶ Y (requiring a grievant to specifically identify the “[d]ates, times, places,
and names of all those involved in the issue being grieved”) (emphasis added).
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. C IV. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, 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. See
Case 1:24-cv-01225-JMB-RSK ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/16/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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. 25) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 22) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 24)
is DENIED as moot.
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: March 16, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:24-cv-01225-JMB-RSK ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/16/26 Page 3
of 3