Burnett #200640 v. Washington et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ANGELO BURNETT #200640,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
v. 	Case No. 2:25-cv-00203
BRENDA BUCHANAN,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 15, 2025. (ECF No. 1). The Court
permitted Plaintiff to proceed as a pauper (ECF No. 5-6) and reviewed Plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it was frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff’s
claims against all but one Defendant were screened and dismissed. (ECF No. 5). The
remaining claim was served on Defendant by U.S. Marshalls on December 18, 2025.1
Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on January 20, 2026. (ECF No. 19).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s first
amended complaint be dismissed in part except for the Eighth Amendment claims of
1 At this juncture, Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is that Defendant Buchanan violated
his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by denying
him medical care regarding his pre-cancerous/cancerous condition. (ECF No. 5,
PageID.45; ECF No. 6, PageID.46-47).
Case 2:25-cv-00203-PLM-PJG ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 1
of 6

-2-
denial of medical care against Defendants Buchanan and Russo arising from Plaintiff’s
pre-cancerous/cancerous condition.
ANALYSIS
A claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right for relief above
the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). As the Supreme Court has
held, to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” If the complaint simply pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a
defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. As the Court further observed:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice . . . Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the
hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock
the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief survives a motion to dismiss . . . . Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be
a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense. But where the well pleaded facts
do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
Case 2:25-cv-00203-PLM-PJG ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 2
of 6

-3-
misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not “show[n]”—“that the
pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 678-79 (internal citations omitted).
I. 	Factual Allegations
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC) at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County,
Michigan. The events about which he complains occurred at that facility, the Lakeland
Correctional Facility (LCF) in Coldwater, Branch County, Michigan, and the Kinross
Correctional Facility (KCF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. Plaintiff
identifies twelve defendants: Heidi E. Washington, James Corrigan, Bryan Morrison,
Unknown Ormsbee, Brenda Buchanan, Dayna Russo, and URF and LCF Correctional
Officers Unknown Parties.
In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following. (ECF No. 19).
The LCF administration “implemented security procedures[,] so they could remain out
of sight while subjecting [Plaintiff] to harm.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.292). Plaintiff
“suffered a serious physical injury to [his] prostate” and developed prostate cancer six
months later “from direct exposure to an ultraviolet device.” (Id.). Plaintiff was then
transferred to KCF, where he “had to wait an additional two months for a referral to [a]
urologist.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.293). Three weeks after his urology consultation, “the
urologist referred Plaintiff back to Defendant Buchanan, a nurse practitioner, “with
instructions to test [him] for [a] urinary infection,” “prescribe [him] medication,”
“administer another PSA blood test,” and “refer [Plaintiff] back to [the urologist] in four
Case 2:25-cv-00203-PLM-PJG ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 3
of 6

-4-
to six weeks.” (Id.). Defendant Buchanan “did not refer [Plaintiff] back to [the
urologist] as requested or administer another PSA blood test” until four months later,
which “confirmed the presence of prostate cancer.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.293).
Defendant Buchanan “did not submit another referral to a urologist until April 24, 2025,
or thirty days later” (ECF No. 19, PageID.293-94). Before consulting with a urologist,
Plaintiff was transferred to URF. (ECF No. 19, PageID.292-93).
At URF, on October 3, 2025, Plaintiff “was administered a prostate specific
antigen (PSA) blood test.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.290). After “[a]n elevated score of 10.3
indicated that [his] prostate cancer [was] spreading,” Plaintiff’s urologist ordered
Defendant Russo, a nurse practitioner, “to submit a referral to the Bureau Health Care
Service (BHCS)[,] requesting approval for an ‘urgent’ prostate biopsy.” (Id.).
Defendant Russo “disobeyed the medical order” by “wait[ing] for over 40 days before she
submitted the referral to BHCS.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that his transfer delayed his
referral to a new urologist at a different facility, which in turn “delayed necessary
treatment for eight months.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.294). Plaintiff asserts that the
URF administration “asked Ms. Russo to delay submitting the referral to BHCS . . .
[b]ecause [Plaintiff] allegedly present[ed] as a security threat to them and the public.”
(ECF No. 19, PageID.291). Plaintiff asserts that this delay was because Defendant
Washington, MDOC director, “has asked administrations to kill [him] in the name of
security.” (Id.).
Case 2:25-cv-00203-PLM-PJG ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 4
of 6

-5-
II. 	Defendant Buchanan
To the extent that Plaintiff reasserts his Eighth Amendment denial-of-medical-
care claim against Defendant Buchanan regarding Plaintiff’s pre-cancerous or cancerous
condition since the spring of 2025, the Court again will not dismiss this claim. Plaintiff
has alleged facts sufficient to state a viable claim at this juncture.
III. Defendant Russo
Plaintiff’s urologist ordered Defendant Russo “to submit a referral to the Bureau
Health Care Service (BHCS)[,] requesting approval for an ‘urgent’ prostate biopsy.”
(ECF No. 19, PageID.290). After “[a]n elevated score of 10.3 indicated that [his]
prostate cancer [was] spreading,” Defendant Russo “disobeyed the medical order” by
“wait[ing] for over 40 days before she submitted the referral to BHCS.” (Id.)
Plaintiff’s allegations suggest a lack of medical treatment for his pre-cancerous or
cancerous condition, and Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that Defendant Russo was
deliberately indifferent toward his treatment timeline. Taking Plaintiff’s factual
allegations as true, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical
care claim against Defendant Russo.
IV. Remaining Defendants
Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted against any of the remaining Defendants. Accordingly, the claims against
Case 2:25-cv-00203-PLM-PJG ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 5
of 6

-6-
remaining Defendants, except for Defendants Buchanan and Russo, will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
first amended complaint be dismissed in part except for the Eighth Amendment
claims of denial of medical care against Defendants Buchanan and Russo arising from
Plaintiff’s pre-cancerous/cancerous condition. For the same reasons the undersigned
makes these recommendations, the undersigned further recommends that an appeal
of this matter by Plaintiff would not be in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 6, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00203-PLM-PJG ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/06/26 Page 6
of 6