Lawrence v. Macomb, County of et al

Filing 34

ORDER Adopting 32 Report and Recommendation Granting 27 Motion to Dismiss filed by Macomb, County of, Granting 26 Motion to Dismiss filed by Betsy Mellos,Denying 29 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Teddy Lawrence,Granting 25 Motion to Dismiss filed by Matthew Switalski,, 23 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Michigan, State of - Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TEDDY LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Number 11-12597
Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge R. Stephen Whalen

COUNTY OF MACOMB, STATE OF
MICHIGAN, MATTHEW SWITALSKI,
and BETSY MELLOS,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Teddy Lawrence filed a pro se complaint against the defendants alleging various violations
of his civil rights, plus war crimes, copyright violations, and Second Amendment deprivations. The
Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge R. Stephen Whalen for pretrial management.
Thereafter, the defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and the plaintiff filed
a motion for summary judgment. On July 20, 2012, Judge Whalen filed a report recommending that
all the defendants’ motions be granted and the plaintiff’s motion be denied. He found that the
plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and barred by several forms of immunity. Judge Whalen also
observed that the plaintiff has filed similar actions against one or more of the present defendants,
which have been dismissed as frivolous. Judge Whalen, therefore, recommended that the plaintiff
be barred from filing any new cases in this Court without prior permission from the Court. The
plaintiff filed timely objections and the matter is before the Court for fresh review.
Objections to a report and recommendation are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Sixth Circuit has stated that “[o]verly general objections do not satisfy the objection

requirement.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006). “The objections must be
clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
The magistrate judge found the complaint in this case to be “long on impassioned rhetoric
and short on facts. The plaintiff’s objections do not add much to the discussion, either. The thrust
of the objections is that the magistrate judge got it wrong. “‘[O]bjections disput[ing] the correctness
of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to be] in error’
are too general.” Spencer, 449 F.3d at 725 (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380). “[T]he failure to file
specific objections to a magistrate’s report constitutes a waiver of those objections.” Cowherd v.
Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004).
Having now had the opportunity to review the report and recommendation, the plaintiff’s
objections, and the entire record of this matter, the Court has determined that the plaintiff’s
objections should be overruled, and, for the reasons stated in the report and recommendation, the
defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
should be denied and the case should be dismissed in its entirety. The Court disagrees, however,
that the plaintiff should be enjoined from filing other matters. The Court believes that the sanctions
available to a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for improper
filings should serve as an adequate deterrent to frivolous filings by the plaintiff in the future.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt.
#32] is ADOPTED, and the plaintiff’s objections [dkt. #33] are OVERRULED.

-2-

It is further ORDERED that the motions to dismiss by defendants Matthew Switalski [dkt.
#25], Betsy Mellos [dkt. #26], County of Macomb [dkt. #27], and the State of Michigan’s motion
for summary judgment [dkt. #23] are GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #29] is
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge

Dated: August 2, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on August 2, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-3-