Rouse et al v. Caruso, et al

Filing 269

ORDER Adopting 267 Report and Recommendation, and Denying 249 Motion to Certify Class, filed by Michael Kanipe, Claude Hoffman, Richard Boone, II, Hilton Evans, Michael Lake, William Taylor, and Denying 250 Amended Motion to Certify Class, filed by Michael Kanipe, Claude Hoffman, Richard Boone, II, Hilton Evans, Michael Lake, William Taylor. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR ROUSE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 06-cv-10961

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 267) AND DENYING MOTION
AND AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (docket nos. 249 and 250)
This is a § 1983 civil rights case, filed by a prisoner and implicating conditions at state
prison facilities in St. Louis, Michigan. It began as a pro se action in 2006. Plaintiffs are all
former inmates at the St. Louis facilities; Defendants are officers and supervisors working
for the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC"). The Court referred the case to a
Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. On August 14, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion
and an amended motion for class certification. ECF Nos. 249, 250. In their motion, Plaintiffs
seek to certify classes of current and former prisoners housed at the St. Louis facilities on
or after February 14, 2005, and two subclasses of current and former prisoners at the
same facility after November 1, 2002, who were subject to certain MDOC policies and
practices.
The Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation ("Report"), ECF No. 267,
on January 7, 2013. In his Report, the Magistrate Judge concluded the Court should deny
both motions for Plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate they meet the standards for class
certification under Fed R. Civ. P. 23(b). The Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiffs

sought relief of the type ordinarily resolved through individualized damages claims, and did
not demonstrate that relief sought would apply generally to a proposed class. The
Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion without prejudice to permit Plaintiffs
to renew their motion if, in the future, they can "affirmatively demonstrate" they belong
within the ambit of Rule 23(a) or (b)(3).
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is only required if the parties “serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). Nevertheless, because a district judge always retains jurisdiction over a motion
after referring it to a magistrate judge, he or she is entitled to review the magistrate judge's
findings of fact and conclusions of law on his or her own initiative. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 154 (1985) (clarifying that while a district court judge need not review a report
and recommendation “de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review
by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other
standard”).
Because neither the plaintiff nor defendant filed objections, de novo review of the
Report's conclusions is not required. Having reviewed the Report's analysis, in light of the
record, the Court finds that its conclusions are factually based and legally sound.
Accordingly, it will adopt the Report's findings and deny the motion for class certification.

2

ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion and Amended Motion for
Class Certification (docket nos. 249 and 250) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: February 13, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 13, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager

3