Boniecki v. Stewart et al

Filing 51

ORDER Adopting 41 Report and Recommendation, Granting 30 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Catherine B Steenland. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TEDDY LAWRENCE BONIECKI,
Case No. 10-cv-12991

Plaintiff,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
DONALD STEWART, PHILLIP E.
DUPLESSIS, CATHERINE B.
STEENLAND, and MATTHEW
SWITALSKI,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 41),
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (docket no. 30)
In this civil rights action, pro se Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights during a criminal prosecution in Michigan’s judicial system.
Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Judge Catherine Steenland of Michigan’s 39-A District
Court in Roseville deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights while conducting a
preliminary examination before binding Plaintiff over to the Macomb County Circuit Court
on various state law charges. Plaintiff seeks money damages. Steenland has moved to
dismiss the claims against her and seeks sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for all
pretrial proceedings. Judge Majzoub recommends that Steenland’s motion be granted but
that Plaintiff not be sanctioned.
A district court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation depends upon whether any party files objections. With respect to portions
of a report that no party objects to, the Court need not undertake any review at all. Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). On the other hand, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provide that a district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”).
Plaintiff is suing Steenland for wrongs he believes arose from Steenland’s handling
of Plaintiff’s preliminary examination on the state charges against him. Judge Majzoub
recommends that the Court grant Steenland’s motion insofar as the motion challenges the
complaint on judicial and sovereign immunity grounds.1 After a de novo review of the
record, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of sovereign and
absolute judicial immunity. Plaintiff’s objections to the report are in places hard to follow,2
and fail to persuade the Court that Judge Majzoub’s recommended ruling is wrong in any
respect. He contends in his objections that Judge Majzoub failed to address 18 U.S.C. §§
241, 242 in her analysis, but these U.S. Code sections are simply the criminal analogues
to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and have no applicability in this civil action. Unlike the civil
enforcement provisions of the Civil Rights Act, the criminal provisions do not create a
private right of action under which an individual may sue. Moore v. Potter, 47 F. App’x 318,
320 (6th Cir. 2002); Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir.
1994). Judge Majzoub addressed Plaintiff’s constitutional claims against Steenland under
1

Steenland also raised the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a basis for dismissal, but Judge
Majzoub did not reach the issue, having found that Plaintiff’s claim are barred by immunity
doctrines. The Court likewise finds no reason to address the issue.
2

For instance, Plaintiff states in his sixth objection that: “I object to the fact that the
federal court is hiding federal Jury’s [sic] from the Plaintiff because of the political and
economic impact that this case brings[.]” Objs. 2 (docket no. 42).
2

§ 1983 and found that Plaintiff had failed to state valid claims. The Court will adopt the
analysis in the report as the opinion of the Court and will dismiss the claims against
Steenland with prejudice.
Furthermore, Steenland did not object to Judge Majzoub’s recommendation that her
request for sanctions under Rule 11 be denied for failure to comply with the Rule’s
procedural requirements. The Court will adopt this portion of the recommendation without
review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the report and recommendation (docket
no. 41) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (docket no. 42) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Steenland’s motion to dismiss (docket no.
30) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Catherine B.
Steenland are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: May 6, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on May 6, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager

3