Morgan #805616 v. Washington et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MONTRELL DARSHAWN MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-165
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Robert
Roundtree, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) corrections officer, filed a motion for
summary judgment on the sole claim remaining in this case, an Eighth Amendment failure-to-
protect claim arising from a July 29, 2023 incident in Plaintiff’s unit. The matter was referred to
the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this
Court grant the motion and close this case. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which Defendant Roundtree 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.
According to Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge “cites the proper guiding precedent and
chronology of events but failes [sic] to apply the deliberate indifference standard correctly and
Case 1:24-cv-00165-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 1
of 3

2
thus comes to a[n] incorrect conclusion” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 38 at PageID.219). Specifically,
Plaintiff argues that he was required to show only that Defendant Roundtree was aware of a
“substantial risk of inmate attacks,” and he asserts that “[c]learly the defendant was exposed to
information concerning the risk by the obviousness of the pervasive risk” (id. at PageID.220, 222).
Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit.
The Magistrate Judge expressly rejected this argument, pointing out that an inmate is not
permitted to rely on a “general concern” to support an Eighth Amendment claim (R&R, ECF No.
37 at PageID.215, citing Gant v. Campbell, 4 F. App’x 254, 256 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994)). 	Hence, in reaching her conclusions, the Magistrate Judge
carefully reviewed the record to assess the specific risk of harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s argument
fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion.
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) and consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, that an
appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See 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. 38) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 37) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is
GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
Case 1:24-cv-00165-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 2
of 3

3
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: February 13, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:24-cv-00165-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 3
of 3