Brown v. Matauszak et al

Filing 77

OPINON AND ORDER denying 66 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 73 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 07-11312
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.
LINDA MATUSZAK, COLLEEN KOENIG,
and JAN TROMBLEY,
Defendants.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights by interfering with his receipt of legal mail.
This Court will not repeat the procedural history of this case except to indicate that it has
dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on two occasions– first sua sponte and then in response to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss– only to be reversed by the Sixth Circuit each time.
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed March 29, 2011. (Doc. 66.) The Court referred
the motion to Magistrate Judge Charles Binder for a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 67.)
On September 15, 2011, Magistrate Judge Binder issued an R&R with respect to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 73.) Magistrate Judge Binder recommends that
this Court deny Defendants’ motion, reasoning that Plaintiff’s newly filed complaint

incorporates the attached memorandum he filed in support of his state court motion for
relief from judgment and that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals already has found that
the motion states non-frivolous claims. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge
Binder informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen
days. (Id. at 7.) On September 23, 2011, Defendants filed objections to the R&R.
When objections are filed to a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge
on a dispositive matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the
reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D.
Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to certain conclusions
of the Report and Recommendation waives any further right to appeal on those issues.
See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987).
Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate judge’s report
releases the Court from its duty to independently review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985).
Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, this Court does not find Magistrate Judge
Binder’s reasoning “circular.” (See Doc. 74 at 1.) The Sixth Circuit reversed this Court’s
decision granting Defendants’ previous motion to dismiss because, on appeal, Plaintiff
attached the memorandum of law that he filed in support of his Rule 6.500 motion and the
Sixth Circuit found that the memorandum “makes clear that he has sufficient facts to
2

demonstrate that the underlying claims were non-frivolous.” Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F.
App’x 608, 609 (6th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). Defendants fail to demonstrate
that Magistrate Judge Binder erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s incorporation of this
memorandum into his newly filed complaint– something he failed to do before– is
sufficient to survive their motion to dismiss. Also contrary to Defendants’ suggestion, the
Sixth Circuit did not find or suggest that Plaintiff had to allege the facts and arguments set
forth in his Rule 6.500 motion in the complaint he filed on remand. Instead, the court of
appeals simply found that Plaintiff had not attached the memorandum to his pleadings
prior to his appeal and, therefore, his prior pleadings were insufficient.
For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the R&R, this Court concurs with
Magistrate Judge Binder’s R&R.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Date: October 24, 2011

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Roy Brown, #217108
Chippewa Correctional Facility
4269 West M-80
Kincheloe, MI 49784
AAG James T. Farrell
Magistrate Judge Charles Binder

3