Maclachlan v. Monroe et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDREW MACLACHLAN,
Case No. 1:23-cv-1141
Plaintiff,
Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v.
NIKKI MONROE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights lawsuit brought by plaintiff Andrew MacLachlan through his
attorney. 	Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC). Five defendants remain in this lawsuit: Dr. Robert Crompton; and, MDOC defendants
Health Unit Manager (HUM) Nikki Monroe, RN Addie Briske, RN Sarah Luce, and RN Jack
Bellanger.1 This matter is now before the Court on a motion for summary judgment on the basis
of exhaustion filed by HUM Monroe, RN Briske and RN Bellanger (ECF No. 40) and a combined
“Motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or in alternative for summary judgment
based solely on the issue of exhaustion” filed by defendant Dr. Crompton (ECF No. 42).2
1 Plaintiff complaint also referred to individuals who have not been identified, “Unknown Part(y)(ies) # 1” and
“Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2”.
2 As the parties are aware this case was stayed and administratively closed on January 24, 2025. When the case was
re-opened, the Court anticipated that the parties may file dispositive motions related to exhaustion of administrative
remedies, advising the parties that, “If any of said defendants (i.e., Dr. Robert Crompton, Nikki Monroe, Addie Briske,
or Jack Bellanger) re-file a dispositive motion, then the Rule 16 Conference will remain adjourned until any such
dispositive motion is addressed. However, if none of these four defendants re-file a dispositive motion, then the Court
will schedule a Rule 16 Conference.” Order (ECF No. 39, PageID.330).
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 1
of 18

2
I. 	Plaintiff’s claims
A. 	Plaintiff’s complaint
The Court summarized plaintiff’s allegations as follows:
In the instant complaint, Plaintiff sues the following ECF personnel:
Warden Les Parish and medical providers Nikki Monroe, Dr. Robert Crompton,
Addie Briske, Sarah Luce, Jack Bellanger, and Unknown Parties #1 and #2, both
of whom are referred to as “unknown medical worker[s] for MDOC.” (ECF No. 1,
PageID.6.)
Plaintiff’s 	allegations 	begin 	on 	July 	29, 	2020, 	when 	Plaintiff 	was
incarcerated at MCF. He alleges that on that date, inmates at MCF “were getting
frustrated because they believed new COVID positive patients were being
transferred into their facility[,] which was COVID free.” (Id.) The next morning,
the MCF administration made prisoners carry bunk beds into Plaintiff’s housing
unit, “indicating that new prisoners were being brought to the unit who were not
COVID tested.” (Id., PageID.7.) “The prisoners gathered and demanded answers
but none were forthcoming so disorganization began and chaos ensued.” (Id.) Staff
then sprayed tear gas into the crowd of inmates. (Id.)
Plaintiff returned to his cell at around 3:00 p.m. and left the cell door open.
(Id.) He heard a noise, looked out, and saw the Emergency Response Team (ERT)
entering the unit, so Plaintiff shut the cell door. (Id.) The ERT charged Plaintiff’s
cell “and told him he was charged with inciting a riot and he was being transferred
out of the facility.” (Id.) The ERT yelled at Plaintiff “to get on the ground and put
his hands behind his head and put his knees on the ground and face away.” (Id.,
PageID.8.) 	Plaintiff did not resist. (Id.) The ERT, however, “slammed the
Plaintiff’s face to the floor[,] pushing his face violently to the floor.” (Id.) Plaintiff
could not break his fall, and the left side of his face hit the tile. (Id.) Plaintiff “heard
a crack, and was in immediate pain.” (Id.) The ERT grabbed Plaintiff by the back
of his neck, choking him, and one of the team members put a knee in Plaintiff’s
back. (Id.) He was then hit with a riot shield in the shoulder and face, and was also
punched in the face. (Id.) 	The ERT “bent [Plaintiff] over parallel with the floor
holding his hands behind him, and violently extracted him from his cell and forced
him out into the transport van, without his personal belongings.” (Id.)
Plaintiff was transferred to ECF that same day, “where he presented
noticeably bloody, face was bruised, nose was broken, in pain, had trouble
breathing, was wheezing, and his clothing was bloody.” (Id.) Plaintiff asked for
immediate medical treatment, but was denied by Defendants Crompton, Briske,
Parish, 	and 	Bellanger. 	(Id., 	PageID.8-9.) 	Defendants 	Briske, 	Belanger, 	and
Crompton also refused to give Plaintiff clean clothes and bedding. (Id., PageID.9-
10.)
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 2
of 18

3
Plaintiff alleges further that he was transferred to ECF without his inhaler.
(Id., PageID.10.) 	He also claims that he was denied his three-per-day breathing
treatments at ECF, despite the fact that he had received these at MCF. (Id.)
According to Plaintiff, Defendants Briske and Crompton denied Plaintiff’s medical
detail “like inhalers, antibiotics, pills, nebulizer, treatment for approximately 14
days 	including 	personal 	asthma 	medication 	and 	breathing 	treatments 	for
approximately 14 days.” (Id., PageID.10.) Plaintiff states that he is allergic to
aspirin, Ibuprofen, and NSAIDS, and has suffered episodes of anaphylaxis while
incarcerated. (Id., PageID.10.)
According to Plaintiff, he asked Defendant Crompton for treatment for a
broken nose and asthma, as well as a referral to a specialist for his nose. (Id.)
Defendant Crompton denied such care for about 3 months. (Id.) Plaintiff repeatedly
asked Defendants Briske and Bellanger for medical care, such as pain medications,
breathing treatments, and a visit to a specialist for his nose and chronic asthma;
those requests were denied for 3½ months. (Id., PageID.11.) Plaintiff continued to
experience symptoms and complained to Defendant Monroe, but she denied care.
(Id., PageID.11.) Plaintiff alleges further that Defendant Briske “degraded him and
humiliated him while attending to his asthma.” (Id.)
On September 23, 2020, Defendants Crompton, Briske, and Monroe sent
Plaintiff to Munson Hospital in Traverse City, Michigan, for a CT scan. (Id.) That
scan revealed “a mild nasal septal deviation to the left, severe chronic sinusitis,
right sphenoid sinus with moderate mucosal thickening with some pneumatization,
diffuse enlargement related to edema of the nasal turbinate[,] and osteomata units
occluded bilaterally.” (Id., PageID.11-12.) On October 13, 2020, Plaintiff was sent
to see otolaryngologist Dr. Harry Borovik. (Id., PageID.12.) Dr. Borovik examined
Plaintiff and diagnosed him with chronic pansinusitis, exacerbated respiratory
disease, chronic rhinosinusitis sampler triad, and chronic nasal obstruction. (Id.)
Dr. Borovik recommended that Plaintiff “undergo immediate surgery.” (Id.) On
October 22, 2022, Dr. Borovik performed several surgical procedures on Plaintiff.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that from July 30, 2020, until he received surgery on October
22, 2022, he suffered painful symptoms, including wheezing, shortness of breath,
tissue in the nostrils, trouble breathing and sleeping, nasal infections, and
discomfort. (Id.)
Plaintiff underwent an endoscopic pansinusitis debridement on November
3, 2020. (Id.) He had another procedure on November 24, 2020, which he believes
was for the purpose of treating an infection. (Id., PageID.13.)
After 	continuing 	to 	experience 	symptoms, 	Plaintiff 	was 	sent 	to
otolaryngologist Dr. Craig Hoekzema in January 2022. (Id.) Dr. Hoekzema tried
non-revision treatment, but Plaintiff’s symptoms continued. (Id.) Thus, Dr.
Hoekzema recommended that Plaintiff receive a revision surgery. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges, however, that the MDOC refused to allow the procedure. (Id.)
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 3
of 18

4
The MDOC is also denying Plaintiff allergy shots. (Id.) Plaintiff has a
severe allergy to dogs, and the symptoms he experiences exacerbate his asthma.
(Id.) Plaintiff has repeatedly requested transfers from ECF because of his allergies,
and those requests have been denied by Defendants Briske, Luce, Crompton,
Bellanger, and Unknown Parties #1 and #2. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges further that he suffers skin disorders, such as tissue
infection, possible MRSA, and chronic sinusitis. (Id., PageID.14.) 	Defendant
Crompton, however, did not provide care for such conditions. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges
that from 2020 through the present, he has made continuous complaints about
ongoing nasal problems to all Defendants at ECF, but that they have denied
necessary medical treatment. (Id.)
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by demonstrating deliberate indifference to his various
medical 	needs. 	Plaintiff 	seeks 	compensatory 	and 	punitive 	damages. 	(Id.,
PageID.20.)
Opinion (ECF No. 5, PageID.34-37).
The Court found that,
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Parish will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Monroe, Crompton,
Briske, Luce, Bellanger, and Unknown Parties #1 and #2 remain in the case.
Id. at PageID.44.
II. 	Dr. Crompton’s Motion to dismiss
As an initial matter, Dr. Crompton moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and to dismiss five claims (1, 2, 3, 4 and 8)
as time barred.3 Dr. Crompton’s Motion at ¶¶ 1-9 (ECF No. 42). This Court reviewed plaintiff’s
complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996)
(PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). See Opinion (ECF No. 5).
Under the PLRA, the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under
federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
3 The Court notes that the eight claims identified by Dr. Crompton appear in § III.E., infra.
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 4
of 18

5
Id. at PageID.31. 	On this initial review, “[a] complaint is frivolous where it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact” and “may be dismissed as frivolous if it is time-barred by the
appropriate statute of limitations.” Guthrie v. Handline, No. 1:12-cv-516, 2012 WL 7060721 at
*2 (Oct. 19, 2012), R&R adopted, 2013 WL 504267 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). 	The standard for assessing whether a complaint pleads factual
allegations sufficient to state plausible claims for relief under §§ 1997e(c) and 1915A is the same
standard applied when evaluating the same inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010).
Here, the Court reviewed the sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint based on his
history of litigation regarding his medical care at the MDOC and found that,
Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference 	claims 	against 	Defendants 	Monroe, 	Crompton, 	Briske, 	Luce,
Bellanger, and Unknown Parties #1 and #2. Accordingly, those claims will remain
in the case.
Opinion at PageID.44. See also PageID.32-34 (“Procedural Background and Current Allegations”
observing that, “[t]his is not the first complaint Plaintiff has filed regarding events that occurred
on July 30, 2020”); PageID.34-37 (“Factual Allegations”); PageID.37-41 (“Failure to State a
Claim”). In short, the Court has reviewed the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Dr. Crompton
has not filed a motion for the Court to reconsider its opinion and order (ECF Nos. 5 and 6).
Accordingly, Dr. Crompton’s motion to dismiss should be denied.
III. 	Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
A. 	Legal Standard
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 5
of 18

6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56 further provides that a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions,
documents, 	electronically 	stored 	information, 	affidavits 	or 	declarations,
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
In Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995), the court set forth the parties’
burden of proof in a motion for summary judgment:
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party’s case. Once the moving party has met its burden of
production, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must present
significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion for
summary judgment. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to support
plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury
could reasonably find for the plaintiff.
Copeland, 57 F.3d at 478-79 (citations omitted). “In deciding a motion for summary judgment,
the court views the factual evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party.” McLean v. 988011 Ontario Ltd., 224 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir. 2000).
B. 	Lack of Exhaustion
1. 	Exhaustion requirement
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that a prisoner bringing an
action with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must first exhaust available
administrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.
731 (2001). A prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies, even if the prisoner may
not be able to obtain the specific type of relief he seeks in the state administrative process. See
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 6
of 18

7
Porter, 534 U.S. at 520; Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. 	One reason for creating prisoner grievance
procedures under the PLRA was to create an administrative record for the court.
Requiring exhaustion allows prison officials an opportunity to resolve disputes
concerning the exercise of their responsibilities before being haled into court. This
has the potential to reduce the number of inmate suits, and also to improve the
quality of suits that are filed by producing a useful administrative record.
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007). In order to properly exhaust administrative remedies,
prisoners must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the deadlines and
other applicable procedural rules. 	Id. at 218; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006).
“Compliance with prison grievance procedures, therefore, is all that is required by the PLRA to
‘properly exhaust.’” Jones, 549 U.S. at 218.
2. 	MDOC Grievance process
The MDOC requires prisoners to follow a three-step process to exhaust grievances.
See MDOC Policy Directive (“PD”) 03.02.130 (effective March 18, 2019). A prisoner must first
attempt to resolve a problem with the staff member within two business days of becoming aware
of the grievable issue, unless prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control. Id. at ¶ Q. If
the issue is not resolved, then the grievant may file a Step I grievance on the prescribed form within
five business days after the grievant attempted to resolve the issue with appropriate staff. Id. at ¶¶
Q and S. The Policy Directive provides the following directions for completing grievance forms:
The issues should be stated briefly but concisely. 	Information provided is to be
limited to the facts involving the issue being grieved (i.e., who, what, when, where,
why, how). Dates, times, places and names of all those involved in the issue being
grieved are to be included.
Id. at ¶ S (emphasis in original). The prisoner must send the Step I grievance to the appropriate
grievance coordinator. Id. at ¶ W. If the prisoner is dissatisfied with the Step I response, or does
not receive a timely response, he must request the appropriate form and send it to the Step II
Grievance Coordinator. Id. at ¶ DD. Finally, if a prisoner is dissatisfied with the Step II response,
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 7
of 18

8
or does not receive a timely response, he must send a completed Step III grievance, using the
appropriate form, to the Grievance and Appeals Section. Id. at ¶ HH.
C. 	Defendants’ motions and plaintiff’s responses
MDOC Defendants Monroe, Briske and Bellanger moved for summary judgment
on the basis of exhaustion (ECF No. 40). Dr. Crompton also moved for summary judgment “based
solely on the issue of exhaustion” (ECF No. 42). 4
D. 	MDOC Defendants
1. 	Plaintiff’s claims against the MDOC defendants
The 	MDOC 	defendants 	identified 	10 	Eighth 	Amendment 	claims 	involving
defendants HUM Nikki Monroe, RN Briske, RN Luce, and RN Bellanger (the “MDOC Claims”):
1. When MacLachlan arrived at ECF, he was bloodied and noticeably injured, but
Dr. Robert Crompton (MDOC contractor), RN Sarah Luce (MDOC contractor), RN
Addie Briske (MDOC employee), and RN Jack Bellanger (MDOC employee)
denied MacLachlan’s requests for immediate medical treatment ([Compl. at ] ¶¶
41-43, PageID.8-9);
2 Upon MacLachlan’s arrival at ECF, RNs Briske and Bellanger and Dr. Crompton
denied his requests for clean clothes and bedding even though his clothes were
bloody (id. ¶¶ 47-48, PageID.9-10);
3. Dr. Crompton, RN Bellanger, RN Briske, and RN Luce denied him his breathing
treatments, which had been three times a day at MCF (id. ¶¶ 44-46, PageID.9);
4. RN Briske and Dr. Crompton denied MacLachlan’s asthma-related medical
details for approximately 14 days (id. ¶ 49, PageID.10) . . .
6. For three-and-a-half months, RNs Briske and Bellanger denied MacLachlan’s
requests to see a specialist for his nose and asthma (id. ¶ 53, PageID.11);
7. Health Unit Manager (HUM) Nikki Monroe denied MacLachlan’s requests for
care, disregarding his symptoms and complaints (id. ¶ 56, PageID.11);
4 The Court notes that plaintiff’s counsel e-filed three responses to the dispositive motions and linked all three
responses to defendant Dr. Crompton’s dispositive motion (see ECF Nos. 43, 44, and 45). It appears that one response
(ECF No. 43) is directed at the MDOC’s dispositive motion. It also appears that another response (ECF No. 44) was
superseded by his later response (ECF No. 45) which is directed at defendant Dr. Crompton.
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 8
of 18

9
8. RN Briske “degraded him and humiliated him while attending to his asthma” (id.
¶ 57, PageID.11);
9. All defendants denied MacLachlan’s request to have revision surgery even
though it was recommended by a specialist (id. ¶ 66, PageID.13);
10. All defendants denied MacLachlan allergy shots (id.);
11. All defendants denied MacLachlan’s requests to be transferred from ECF due
to his dog allergies (he claimed that he had severe allergy to dogs which
exacerbated his asthma) (id. ¶¶ 67-68, PageID.13) . . .
MDOC Defendants’ Brief (ECF No. 41, PageID.337-338).5
2. 	Grievances
The MDOC Defendants identified four grievances which plaintiff pursued through
Step III which are relevant to this lawsuit. 	See MDOC Defendants’ Brief (ECF No. 41,
PageID.345). 	As discussed, infra., three of the grievances involved incidents in 2020, and one
grievance involved an incident in 2023.
a. 	Grievance ECF 2020-08-0962-12F (“962”)
Grievance 962 (dated August 9, 2020), listed an incident date of July 30, 2020, the
date that plaintiff “was rode out from MCF” and arrived at ECF. Grievance 962 (ECF No. 23-3,
PageID.252). This grievance is not directed at any particular person. Plaintiff stated that he did
not have his KOP (keep on person) medication for over 10 days and that “[s]ince arriving to this
facility I haven’t been able to be cared for for [sic] my medical issues and would like to be relocated
to a facility that can meet my medical needs.” PageID.252.
RN Bellinger responded to the grievance and HUM Monroe reviewed it. 	Id. at
PageID.253. The grievance stated that per an investigation, it was determined: that plaintiff’s
5 The Court notes that defendant Luce is not contesting exhaustion to the claims alleged against her, i.e., MDOC
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10 and 11.
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page 9
of 18

10
property was not received until August 13, 2020; that Health Care was unaware that plaintiff did
not receive his property; that plaintiff kited on August 9, 2020; and that “meds were ordered and
delivered 8/12/2020.” Id.
MDOC Defendants point out that:
As RN Bellanger and HUM Monroe were the Step I respondent and reviewer,
respectively, for all four grievances—and as MacLachlan did not identify them as
the subjects of the grievance or contest their involvement as the respondent and
reviewer—it shows that they were not the subjects of the grievances.
MDOC Defendants’ Brief (ECF No. 41, PageID.346). See MDOC PD 03.02.130 ¶ V (“Prisoners
and staff who may be involved in the issue being grieved shall not participate in any capacity in
the grievance investigation, review, or response, except as necessary to provide information to the
respondent.”).
b. 	Grievance ECF 2020-08-1042-12F (“1042”)
Grievance 1042 (dated August 21, 2020) (ECF No. 23-3, PageID.246) listed an
incident date of August 16, 2020. 	Id. 	Plaintiff stated that since riding into ECF “I have been
constantly ignored and [disregarded] when asking for my breathing treatments.” Id. Plaintiff did
not name anyone in his grievance. In addition, plaintiff’s grievance was not directed at the nurses.
Rather, plaintiff stated that “I have asked staff multiple times to get the nurse so I can get my
breathing treatments, but they either never contact medical or disregard my request.” Id. (emphasis
added). As with grievance 962, RN Bellinger and HUM Monroe signed the grievance response as
the respondent and reviewer, respectively. PageID.247.
c. 	Grievance ECF 2020-08-1049-12E4 (“1049”)
Grievance 1049 (dated August 24, 2020) (ECF No. 23-2, PageID.258) involved an
incident on August 23, 2020. In this grievance, plaintiff stated that after asking to speak to a nurse,
“RN Briske then proceeded to come up and speak with me at my cell door” and that he was taken
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
10 of 18

11
to the health care room. Id. Plaintiff stated that RN Briske was “VERY unprofessional as well as
unethical”, e.g.: RN Briske “started badgering me that I was ‘manipulating wheezing’” because I
wanted out of my cell; despite complaining about a sinus issue, Briske “never checked my temp,
blood pressure or looked in my nose”; and, Briske referred to plaintiff as “probably just a snotty
nose kid.” Id. The response, prepared by RN Bellinger and HUM Monroe, noted that during his
examination on August 23, 2020, plaintiff’s pulse, respiratory rate and oxygen level were within
normal limits, and that lung sounds and wheezing cleared up with cough and deep breathing.
PageID.259. The grievance was denied at Steps II and III. PageID.254, 256-257.
d. 	Grievance ECF 2023-04-876-12z (“876”)
Finally, over two years later, plaintiff filed Grievance 876 (dated April 24, 2023)
(ECF 23-3, PageID.224). 	The alleged incident occurred on that date. 	Plaintiff stated that over
“the past couple of years at this facility” he has had serious respiratory and sinus issues, with
treatment including antibiotics and steroids (prednisone) and that he is also a chronic care asthma
patient. Id. In addition, “I took an allergen test that stated I am very allergic to dust, mold, ragweed
and ANIMAL DANDER with the circulated air in the housing units as well as the dog program.”
Id. 	Plaintiff wants to be housed “away from the animals” or transferred to another facility
immediately. Id.
The grievance does not name any particular person. 	However, in attempting to
resolve the grievance, plaintiff spoke with defendant Dr. Crompton. 	PageID.224. 	The MDOC
Policy Directives direct the prisoner to “attempt to resolve the matter” with the staff member
involved in the proposed grievance:
Prior to submitting a written grievance, the grievant shall attempt to resolve
the issue with the staff member involved within two business days after becoming
aware of a grievable issue, unless prevented by circumstances beyond his/her
control or if the issue is believed to fall within the jurisdiction of Internal Affairs.
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
11 of 18

12
If the issue is not resolved, the grievant may file a Step I grievance. The Step I
grievance must be filed within five business days after the grievant attempted to
resolve the issue with appropriate staff.
PD 03.02.130 ¶ Q. Based on ¶ Q, it appears that this April 24, 2023 grievance is directed at Dr.
Crompton.
The response, prepared by RN Bellinger and HUM Monroe, noted that plaintiff’s
current electronic medical record and previous symptom notes were reviewed and that “[n]o
allergy testing found.” Grievance 876 at PageID.225. The decision stated:
It is documented in your record prior antibiotic and steroid use, previous ENT
surgeries. Allergy testing not located. Request to MP (chart review) to determine
for allergy testing. Grievance partially resolved.
Id. The Step II response included a more complete review of the medical record which located
previous allergy testing and denied the grievance:
Review of the electronic medical record and housing data reveals that
grievant arrived at ECF on 7/30/2020. Prior to his transfer to ECF, grievant had
been housed at MCF. Both facilities have dogs on-site. Grievant has an extensive
history of sinus, respiratory, and allergy issues. While at MCF, allergy testing was
completed. Results of that testing posted to grievant’s record on 3/2/2020; they
were reviewed by a medical provider on 3/3/2020. Results indicate that grievant’s
most significant responses were to plants (grasses and ragweed). However, a “very
low level” response was recorded to dog dander. There is no indication that housing
reassignment was considered necessary at that time re: these test results. Grievant
has been extensively followed and treated re: his chronic symptoms. He was
recently evaluated by the ECF physician on 5/25/2023. The physician noted
grievant’s concern re: his symptoms and his (grievant’s) belief that exposure to
dogs 	is 	worsening 	same. 	The 	physician 	prescribed 	medications 	to 	address
grievant’s symptoms and noted that transfer to a housing unit without dogs may be
considered. On-site follow-up is planned and an off-site ENT consultation is
pending.
This respondent can neither confirm nor refute grievant’s claim that
exposure to dogs is worsening his symptoms. However, it appears that grievant has
been evaluated and treated for those symptoms as deemed appropriate by the
medical 	providers 	responsible 	for 	his 	care. 	This 	respondent 	has 	been 	in
communication with ECF Health Care to ensure that they are aware of the results
of grievant 2020 allergy testing. As outlined above, a plan of care is in place.
Grievant is encouraged to follow that plan of care as instructed and to promptly
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
12 of 18

13
notify Health Care if he experiences acute adverse symptoms in future and/or if he
has any further concerns re: chronic symptoms or issues.
Id. at PageID.222. The grievance was denied at Step III. Id. at PageID.220.
2. 	Discussion
a. 	RN Bellanger and HUM Monroe
Plaintiff did not exhaust any claims against defendants HUM Monroe and RN
Bellanger or HUM Monroe. 	As discussed, plaintiff did not name Bellanger or Monroe in any
grievance as required by PD 03.02.130 ¶ S. See Vandiver v. Martin, 48 Fed. Appx. 517, 519 (6th
Cir. 2002) (“The issues [plaintiff] may raise, and the defendants he may name, in his lawsuit are
limited to the specific issues raised, and the specific individuals mentioned, in his grievance”). On
the contrary, Bellinger and Monroe were the employees responsible for responding and reviewing
the grievances. See MDOC PD 03.02.130 ¶ V. 	Based on this record, plaintiff did not properly
exhaust any grievances against Bellanger or Monroe. See Jones, 549 U.S. at 218-19; Woodford,
548 U.S. at 90-93.
b. 	RN Briske
Similarly, plaintiff did not name RN Briske in Grievances 962, 1042, and 876.
Accordingly, none of these grievances are properly exhausted against RN Briske. See Jones, 549
U.S. at 218-19; Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-93.
As discussed, plaintiff named RN Briske in Grievance 1049 and plaintiff exhausted
this grievance through Step III. The allegations in Grievance 1049 could be broadly construed as
including Claim 8 alleged the MDOC defendants, i.e., that “RN Briske ‘degraded him and
humiliated him while attending to his asthma’ (id. ¶ 57, PageID.11).” 	Accordingly, the Court
concludes that this claim is properly exhausted.
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
13 of 18

14
c. 	Plaintiff’s response
Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 43) did not address the MDOC Defendants’
arguments with respect to the relevant grievances. Rather, plaintiff appears to contend that
administrative remedies were not available while he was in segregation and that he should be
excused from naming the person grieved. 	“An inmate need exhaust only such administrative
remedies as are ‘available’.” Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 648 (2016). “[W]hen prison
administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination,
misrepresentation, or intimidation . . ., such interference with an inmate’s pursuit of relief renders
the administrative process unavailable.” Id. at 644.
In support of this claim, plaintiff stated,
Plaintiff made every attempt to comply with the prison Grievance process.
The process was made unavailable to him because he was in segregation from
August, 2020 through middle January 2021. The MDOC Rules state that a prisoner
has to deliver his grievances to the grievance coordinator. Plaintiff was deprived by
the prison system making it impossible for Andrew to follow the proper procedures.
Whie is segregation, he was forced to place his grievance in the lock mechanism of
his cell, and hope that the correction officers (CO’s) will deliver it to the grievance
coordinator.
Plaintiff’s Brief (ECF No. 43, PageID.399).
Plaintiff’s claims are based on quotes from kites (PageID.400-401) and a
“declaration” attached to his brief which states that “everything” in his response is truthful “to the
best of my abilities”:
I ANDREW MACLACHLAN, do swear and affirm to the best of my abilities, that
I have reviewed the Response to Defendant’s motion, and everything in it is truthful
to the best of my abilities.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct to the best of my abilities.
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
14 of 18

15
Decl. (July 12, 2025) (ECF No. 43-1, PageID.405) (ECF No. 45-5, PageID.468). This declaration
is not an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to § 1746(a), which requires that
the declaration must be in substantially the following form:
“I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)”.
28 U.S.C. § 1746(1). Furthermore, plaintiff has not set forth a coherent affidavit or declaration
setting forth the specific facts which explain his failure to file grievances and explaining the quotes
from the kites. An affidavit is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact if it contains
only conclusory allegations. Sigmon v. Appalachian Coal Properties, Inc., 400 Fed. Appx. 43, 49
(6th Cir. 2010). 	Accordingly, However, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the grievance
process was unavailable.
d. 	Summary
Based on this record, the only grievance which plaintiff exhausted was Grievance
1049 directed at RN Briske related to the MDOC defendants’ Claim 8. Accordingly, the Court
should grant defendants Monroe, Briske and Bellanger’s motion for summary judgment on all
claims except for MDOC Claim 8 directed at RN Briske.
E. 	Defendant Dr. Crompton
1. 	Plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Crompton
For his part, Dr. Crompton identified eight Eighth Amendment claims directed
against him (the “Crompton Claims”):
1. In the days following July 30, 2020, Dr. Crompton and others denied breathing
treatments (Compl. at ¶ 46, PageID.9).
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
15 of 18

16
2. On unspecified dates, Dr. Crompton and others refused to give plaintiff clean
detail, bedding, and underwear (¶ 48, PageID.10).
3. On unspecified dates, Dr. Crompton and others refused to provide plaintiff with
inhalers, antibiotics, pills, nebulizer, and treatment for 14 days (¶ 49, PageID.10).
4. On unspecified dates, Dr. Crompton refused to provide medical care for broken
nose, referral to specialist, and treatment for asthma (¶ 52, PageID.10).
5. On unspecified dates, “all individual defendants” denied plaintiff’s request to
transfer to another facility due to dog allergies (¶ 68, PageID.13).
6. From 2020 through 2023, Dr. Crompton failed to treat tissue infection, possible
MRSA, chronic sinusitis, and “more” (¶ 69, PageID.14).
7. From 2020 through 2023, “all Defendants” failed to provide medical treatment
for plaintiff’s ongoing nasal treatment and refused medication and revision surgery (¶¶66, 72,
PageID.13-14).
8. On unspecified dates, “any of the Defendants” failed to treat upper respiratory
symptoms caused by the tear gas. (¶ 75, PageID.15).
See Dr. Crompton’s Brief (ECF No. 42, PageID.351-352).
b. 	Discussion
In his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Crompton states that, “Plaintiff’s
grievance records show he did not file any grievances against anyone pertaining to his claims Nos.
2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.” Dr. Crompton’s Brief at PageID.378. Dr. Crompton does not address two of
plaintiff’s claims against him: Claim 1 (in the days following July 30, 2020, Dr. Crompton and
others denied breathing treatments); and Claim 3 (on unspecified dates, Dr. Crompton and others
refused to provide plaintiff with inhalers, antibiotics, pills, nebulizer, and treatment for 14 days).
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
16 of 18

17
Dr. Crompton refers to three grievances which relate to medical care. Grievance
Nos. 962, 1042 and 1049. Dr. Crompton’s Brief at PageID.379-383. As discussed, supra, none
of those grievances referenced Dr. Crompton. However, Dr. Crompton does not address Grievance
876. As discussed, Grievance 876 is directed at Dr. Crompton and relates to the doctor’s failure
to treat plaintiff for an alleged allergic reaction to animal dander and his request to be sent to a
different facility to avoid exposure to animals. 	Under the circumstances, the Court construes
Grievance 876 as addressing plaintiff’s allergy and exposure to animal dander as alleged in
Crompton Claim 5.
Based on this record, the Court concludes that plaintiff did not properly exhaust
Crompton Claims 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8. See Jones, 549 U.S. at 218-19; Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-93.
However, the Court concludes that plaintiff properly exhausted Crompton Claim 5. Finally, Dr.
Crompton did not address exhaustion with respect to Crompton Claims 1 and 3. Accordingly, this
case should proceed on Crompton Claims 1, 3, and 5.
IV. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that MDOC defendants RN Bellanger,
HUM Monroe and RN Briske’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) be GRANTED as
to all claims except for MDOC Claim 8 directed at RN Briske.
I further recommend that MDOC defendants RN Bellinger and HUM Monroe be
DISMISSED from this case.
I further recommend that defendant Dr. Crompton’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.
42) be DENIED, and his motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) be GRANTED as to
Crompton Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8, and DENIED as to Crompton Claims 1, 3, and 5.
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
17 of 18

18
If these recommendations are adopted then this case should proceed against
defendants RN Luce (MDOC Claims 1, 3, 9, 10 and 11), RN Briske (MDOC Claim 8), and Dr.
Crompton (Crompton Claims 1, 3, and 5).
Dated: January 21, 2026 	/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
United States Magistrate Judge
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of the report. All objections and responses to
objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to serve and file written objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case 1:23-cv-01141-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/21/26 Page
18 of 18