Smith #619752 v. Brown et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ASHTON A. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
DALE BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-379
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Following
screening, Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims, Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendants Unknown Zupon and Unknown Kerr for the denial of Plaintiff’s walking aid, and ADA
claims against Defendants Zupon and Kerr in their official capacities remain in the case.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust
his administrative remedies for these claims. 	The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge,
who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court deny the motion
as to two retaliation claims and otherwise grant the motion. 	The matter is presently before the
Court on Defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which Plaintiff 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.
Case 1:25-cv-00379-JMB-PJG ECF No. 37, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 1
of 3

2
The Magistrate Judge determined that Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of
demonstrating that two of Plaintiff’s claims were not exhausted, to wit: Plaintiff’s claims that
(1) on June 16, 2024, Defendant Zupon confiscated Plaintiff’s legal pleadings in
retaliation for filing grievances[;] and
(2) on an unknown date between July 9, 2024, and July 12, 2024, Defendant Zupon,
at Defendant Bonn’s direction, confiscated Plaintiff’s legal pleadings in
retaliation for filing grievances
(R&R, ECF No. 32 at PageID.357).
In their objections, Defendants challenge only the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation as
to the second remaining claim. According to Defendants, the Step II documents that they supplied
to the Magistrate Judge “entirely negate Smith’s baseless claim that he did not receive a Step II
appeal form in [Grievance ICF-24-07-0810-17b (ICF-810)]” (Defs. Obj., ECF No. 33 at
PageID.361–362).
The Magistrate Judge did not overlook Defendants’ evidence but assigned it different
import in light of Plaintiff’s evidence that he requested, but was never provided, a Step II grievance
form (R&R, ECF No. 32 at PageID.355, referencing Pl. Aff., ECF No. 27-2). 	The Magistrate
Judge determined that interpreting the record evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the
non-moving party, “compels the conclusion that there exists a factual dispute that cannot be
resolved at this juncture” (id.). Defendants’ mere disagreement fails to demonstrate any factual or
legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or ultimate conclusion. 	Accordingly, this Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court.
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 33) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 32) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
Case 1:25-cv-00379-JMB-PJG ECF No. 37, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 2
of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is
DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation.
Dated: December 9, 2025
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-00379-JMB-PJG ECF No. 37, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/09/25 Page 3
of 3