Braxton v. Saginaw Police Department

Filing 9

ORDER Adopting Report 8 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JOSES BRAXTON, Plaintiff, Case No. 12-11616 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington v. SAGINAW POLICE DEPARTMENT. Defendant. ______________________________________ / ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT On April 10, 2012, Plaintiff Joses Braxton filed a pro se civil rights action alleging claims of “[u]nlawful investigation, searches, seizures, and arrests,” as well as “lack of jurisdiction, discrimination, harassment, and violation of due process” against Defendant Saginaw Police Department. Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court also referred the case to Magistrate Judge Charles Binder for pretrial proceedings. On May 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed an “objection to the screening contemplated by 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2),” writing “I ask that an attorney be appointed before any more screenings or hearings are held. I filed the complaint under the influence that I would be appointed [counsel] before any proceedings were held. I am not an attorney and although I can read and write I do have a hard time understanding law and all that pertains to it.” ECF No.7 Section 1915(e)(2) provides in pertinent part that in all cases that the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court shall review the complaint before service and, moreover, “shall dismiss the case . . . if the court determines that — the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii). Additionally, “There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case.” Cleary v. Mukasky, 307 F. App’x 963, 965 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003)). Although § 1915(e)(1) provides that a court may request an attorney for an indigent party in a civil case, the Sixth Circuit cautions that “[c]ourts should request counsel for pro se civil plaintiffs only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” Cleary, 307 F. App’x at 965 (quoting Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1993)). Judge Binder, pursuant to his statutory obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), screened the complaint. He then issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF No. 8. Any party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. The Court is not obligated to review the portions of the report to which no objection was made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). As of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to Judge Binder’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 8) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that the complaint and amended complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 6) is DISMISSED. -2- It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge Dated: May 24, 2012 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon Joses Braxton, at 1024 N. 6th Avenue, Saginaw, MI 48601 by first class U.S. mail on May 24, 2012. s/Tracy A. Jacobs TRACY A. JACOBS -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?