Groulx et al v. Dollar General Corporation et al
Opinion and Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's 8 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing the 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PATRICK-JOSEPH GROULX and
CAROL JEAN GROULX
Case No. 1:21-cv-10811
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris’ Report and
Recommendation. ECF No. 8. On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Patrick-Joseph Groulx and Carol
Jean Groulx filed a pro se complaint against 34 defendants, including Defendant Dollar General
Corporation. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs applied for and were subsequently granted leave to proceed
without prepaying fees and costs. ECF Nos. 2, 7. All pretrial matters were referred to Magistrate
Judge Morris. ECF No. 6. The Magistrate Judge subsequently screened the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and, on May 7, 2021, issued her Report and Recommendation.
In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Morris provides the following
background on the case:
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “defendant is about to build a business
where hazardous chemicals are deployed and where the general public will sustain
injuries from the hazardous chemicals.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Plaintiffs claims
[sic] that Defendants have purchased 10 acres of land adjacent to and across from
properties where “hazardous chemicals are deployed” that have caused Plaintiffs
health problems including “vomiting, severe diarrhea, thyroid being damaged now
have AIDS.” (Id.) Plaintiffs claim that “[i]f [Defendants] build a business [in this
area] the medical issues that Plaintiff is suffering from will be the same problems
or worse to the people that will frequent the establishment.” (Id. at PageID.3.)
Plaintiffs “demand an injunction against [Defendants] from building a business [in
the area] that deploy hazardous chemicals . . . to prevent what has happened to
Plaintiff[s] over the years[.]” (Id. at PageID.4.)
ECF No. 8 at PageID.26–27. As Magistrate Judge Morris explained, however, Plaintiffs have not
alleged sufficient facts demonstrating Article III standing against Defendants:
Plaintiffs do not allege that the building of certain businesses in a particular location
has caused chemical exposure to the general public, only that [they] believe it
will. Further, Plaintiffs appear to argue that they are not concerned about chemical
exposure themselves from this new building, but rather that the “general public”
will suffer. Plaintiffs do not specify a financial or any other interest they have in
the property upon which they claim businesses will be built. And Plaintiffs do not
specify a particularized harm that has happened, or to whom in particular this harm
may happen. I also note that it is unclear from the Complaint precisely how a new
business, unrelated to the existing businesses and properties in the area, but only
built near property Plaintiffs claim caused them chemical exposure, would lead to
even more chemical exposure. Any injury in fact here is “conjectural or
hypothetical,” and Plaintiffs have not established acausal connection between these
new businesses and any harm Plaintiffs believe may happen to the general public
as a result. [Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)].
ECF No. 8 at PageID.28–29. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Morris recommended that the
Complaint be dismissed for lack of standing.
Although the Report and Recommendation states that the parties could object to and seek
review of the recommendation within 14 days of service, no objections have been filed. The
election not to file objections to the Report and Recommendation releases the Court from its duty
to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file
objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Id.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Morris’ Report and Recommendation,
ECF No. 8, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
Dated: June 3, 2021
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
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?