Tucker #132271 v. Kemp et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
L. T. TUCKER, #132271, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 2:22-cv-205
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
R. K EMP,
et al., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tucker, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC), alleges Defendants retaliated against him. Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 76) and Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 80). 	The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the court grant
Defendants’ motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 89). 	Plaintiff filed objections.
The court will adopt the report and recommendation.
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. §
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).
Case 2:22-cv-00205-PLM-MV ECF No. 94, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 1
of 4

2
1. R&R failed to analyze the allegations in Plaintiff’s verified complaint. The court
overrules this objection. Plaintiff has not identified any particular allegation in the complaint
that the R&R allegedly overlooked. 	Nor has Plaintiff explained how consideration of any
particular allegation in his complaint would have resulted in a different outcome.
2. Defendant Williams had knowledge of Plaintiff’s protected conduct which creates
a genuine issue of material fact. 	The court overrules this objection. 	The R&R does not
resolve the claims against Williams based on a lack of knowledge. 	The R&R found that
Williams would have issued the misconduct tickets even in the absence of the protected
conduct.
3. Plaintiff has created a genuine issue of material fact whether the factual findings in
the disciplinary hearing deserve preclusive effect. 	The court overrules this objection.
Whether the factual findings at a misconduct hearing have a preclusive effect is a legal issue,
not a factual issue.
Cf. George v. Hargett, 879 F.3d 711, 718 n.4 (6th Cir. 2018);
Herrera v.
Churchill McGee, LLC, 680 F.3d 539, 552 n.9 (6th Cir. 2012). 	And even if the hearing
officer did not resolve all of the disputed facts, the facts that were resolved have a preclusive
effect. The fact that the hearing officer’s written statement did not specifically identify and
address each and every one of Plaintiff’s arguments does not mean that Plaintiff was not
afforded a sufficient opportunity to litigate the issue. Nor does the fact that the hearing officer
wrote the statement outside of the prisoner’s presence require the conclusion that Plaintiff
did not receive a sufficient opportunity to litigate the matter. The hearing officers found that
Plaintiff engaged in threatening behavior and rejected Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants
engaged in retaliatory conduct.
Case 2:22-cv-00205-PLM-MV ECF No. 94, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 2
of 4

3
4 and 5. The court should not rely on the false hearing reports. The court overrules
this objection for the same reasons provided for rejecting the third objection.
6. Even if the facts determined at the hearing have preclusive effects, Plaintiff can still
bring a retaliation claim. The court overrules this objection. Plaintiff cites two Sixth Circuit
cases, both of which are easily distinguishable. In this case, resolution of the disputed facts
at the hearing do preclude Plaintiff’s retaliation claim in this lawsuit.
7, 8 and 9. Defendants do not enjoy qualified immunity. The court overrules these
objections. 	Because Defendants have demonstrated that they would have taken the same
actions regardless of protected conduct, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a constitutional
violation and Defendants enjoy qualified immunity.
10. Defendant Franti does not always write misconduct reports. The court overrules
this objection. Plaintiff’s objection here does not address the reasons when the claim against
Franti is dismissed. 	Plaintiff did not engage in protected conduct by threatening a lawsuit
prior to the complained of conduct.
11. 	The 	Magistrate 	Judge 	did 	not 	fully 	consider 	Plaintiff’s 	evidence 	in the
recommendation to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims. The court overrules this objection.
Plaintiff merely repeats the same arguments addressed above. 	Plaintiff complains that
Defendant should not be able to avoid retaliations claims by alleging that they would have
done the same thing regardless of protected activity. But that is the law.
12. Plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact for his claims against Wertanen
and Snow because he alleged that they threatened him if he did not plead guilty. The court
overrules the objection. The R&R summarizes the relevant facts and explains why Plaintiff’s
Case 2:22-cv-00205-PLM-MV ECF No. 94, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 3
of 4

4
version of the facts does not create a triable issue. Plaintiff does not create a genuine issue
of material fact by characterizing the conversation as a threat. Defendants were explaining
the options available to Plaintiff depending on whether he pled guilty or not guilty.
13. The court should not dismiss the state law claims. The court overrules Plaintiff’s
objections and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
14. The R&R does not properly and sufficiently consider all of Plaintiff’s evidence.
The court overrules this objection. Plaintiff has not identified which specific evidence was
overlooked or how it would make a difference. On summary judgement, and in light of all
the evidence in the record, a temporal proximity between Plaintiff’s conduct and Defendants’
responses does not suffice to show causation.
For these reasons, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No.
89), GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 76) and DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 80). IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	October 30, 2025 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-00205-PLM-MV ECF No. 94, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/30/25 Page 4
of 4