Boniecki v. Stewart et al

Filing 57

ORDER Granting 46 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings; and Adopting 55 Report and Recommendation.. 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, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 55),
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (docket no. 46),
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (docket no. 50)
Pro se plaintiff Teddy Lawrence Boniecki was detained by defendant police officers
Donald Stewart and Phillip E. Duplessis in a traffic stop on May 27, 2010. The stop
culminated in Boniecki's arrest. He was ultimately charged with resisting and obstructing
police officers, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, driving with a suspended
license, reckless driving, and felony firearm. Boniecki failed to appear for his July 19, 2010
arraignment, and ten days later filed this civil rights action seeking money damages for
events arising out of the traffic stop. His complaint alleges "deprivation of constitutional
rights, conspiracy too [sic] deprive Plaintiff of constitutional rights, failure to protect Plaintiff
from conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, discriminatingly [sic] against
Plaintiff’s sincere religion convections [sic], violation of copyright, theft of private property,
infliction of excessive and therefore cruel and unusual punishment, infliction of peonage
and involuntary servitude, violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and conspiracy.” ECF
No. 1. Officers Stewart and Duplessis have moved to dismiss Boniecki's claims, or in the
alternative for summary judgment. ECF No. 46. Boniecki has moved to stay the
proceedings. ECF No. 50.

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial
proceedings. Judge Majzoub recommends that the Court grant the motion to dismiss and
deny Boniecki's motion to stay. Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 55. Boniecki has
timely filed objections to the magistrate judge's Report but, as discussed below, his
objections are largely unable to be understood. The Court has reviewed the Report and its
findings, and will overrule Boniecki's objections, adopt the Report in full, dismiss Boniecki's
claims, and deny Boniecki's motion to stay the proceedings.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Civil Rule 72(b) governs the Court's review of a magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The Court is only required to perform a de novo
review of the magistrate judge's findings if the parties “serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 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).
Boniecki sues Stewart and Duplessis for actions taken in conjunction with the May 27,
2010 traffic stop and Boniecki's arrest. Judge Mazjoub recommends (1) that the complaint
be dismissed for failure to state a claim insofar as Boniecki alleges copyright damages,
peonage and involuntary servitude, theft, religious discrimination, Sherman Act violations,
conspiracy, and violations of the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Ninth and Tenth
Amendment claims; and (2) that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) with respect to Boniecki's claims against the officers under
the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and any due process claim.
Heck instructs that a cause of action under § 1983 that would "imply the invalidity of
a conviction" does not accrue until the conviction is reversed, expunged, invalidated or

2

called into question by a federal court's issuance of habeas corpus. Heck, 512 U.S. at 477.
The Sixth Circuit has construed Heck to also preclude pre-conviction § 1983 claims, like
Boniecki's, "that if successful would necessarily imply the invalidity of a future conviction
on a pending criminal charge."

Wolfe v. Perry, 412 F.3d 707, 714 (6th Cir. 2005)

(emphasis in original).
Boniecki has raised nine objections to the magistrate judge's Report, many of which
do not logically follow, or at the very least fail to comprise "specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations." Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). For example, Boniecki
objects "that the magistrate has a drivers license and has a conflict of interest." Objections
to Report & Recommendation 1, ECF No. 56. Boniecki's fourth through eighth objections
appear to be directed at the application of Heck and Wolfe to preclude his § 1983 claims
while the criminal charges are pending. See, e.g., id. at 2 ("Objection 6: To the statement
by the six circuit court of appeals case "Heck precludes" on the grounds that the charges
are unconstitutional therefore no state case can exist which means that this court has an
obligation to protect my rights and not try to cover it up with stalling techniques because of
this case in Federal court stops the state case then the state was in violation of the
constitution all along."). But after a de novo review of the record, the Court is satisfied that
the magistrate judge's analysis and application of Heck is correct. Boniecki's objections do
not persuade the Court otherwise.
Because Boniecki does not even colorably object to the magistrate judge's
recommendations with regard to dismissal of his claims under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) or denial
of his motion to stay, the Court will adopt those portions of the Report without review. See
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

3

ORDER
WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket
no. 55) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the motion to dismiss (docket no. 46) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Stewart and
Duplessis are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings (docket no.
50) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: November 30, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on December 1, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager

4