Bouza v. City of Bay City Police Department et al

Filing 7

ORDER Adopting Magistrate's 6 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ALDEN J. BOUZA, JR.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:25-cv-10260

v.
BAY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.
Defendants.

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
United States District Judge
Honorable Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge

__________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
As alleged, on July 3, 2024, Bay City Police Officer “Wojewoda” and Bay City Police
Sergeant “Kieliszewski” “unlawfully arrested and unlawfully incarcerated” Plaintiff Alden Bouza,
Jr., and engaged in unidentified “police misconduct.” ECF No. 1 at PageID.1. Accordingly, on
January 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendants Wojewoda and
Kieliszewski in their official capacities, alleging both Defendant deprived Plaintiff of his Fourth
Amendment rights. Id. at PageID.3–5. Although difficult to discern, Plaintiff’s Complaint
seemingly alleges he was the “victim” of assault the day he was arrested, and Defendants
mistakenly arrested and incarcerated him, instead of the real “aggressor.” See id. at PageID.1–5
(emphasis added).
On February 4, 2025, this Court referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Patricia T.
Morris, ECF No. 4. The next day, Judge Morris granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). ECF No.5. But proceeding IFP subjects Plaintiff’s Complaint to the Prisoner
Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirements. Indeed, the PLRA counsels courts to dismiss IFP
complaints that (i) are frivolous or malicious, (ii) fail to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or (iii) seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

After screening Plaintiff’s IFP Complaint, Judge Morris issued a report (R&R)
recommending this Court sua sponte dismiss it for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 6. Judge Morris
reasoned that Plaintiff “does not provide a detailed narrative of the underlying incident,” “does not
explain why he called 911” on July 3, 2024, and “does not explain what happened when the officer
[Defendants] arrived.” Id. at PageID.28 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 8). Moreover, Judge Morris noted
that—although he sues Defendants in their official capacities—Plaintiff does not plead any facts
sufficient for municipal § 1983 liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
See id. at PageID.28–29.
In accordance with Civil Rule 72(b)(2), Judge Morris provided the Parties fourteen days to
object. Id. at PageID.29. The Parties did not do so. Thus, they have forfeited their right to appeal
Judge Morris’s findings. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). There is no clear error in Judge Morris’s R&R.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 6, is ADOPTED.
Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
This is a final order and closes the above-captioned case.
Dated: March 12, 2025

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

-2-