Lawrence v. Warren, City of et al

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 19 , Overruling Objections 20 and Granting 10 Motion to Dismiss filed by Warren, City of. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TEDDY LAWRENCE,
Case No. 11-cv-13114
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
CITY OF WARREN, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (docket no. 20),
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket
no. 19), AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS (docket no. 10)
Teddy Lawrence filed a lawsuit against the City of Warren and several members of
the Warren Police Department1 ("WPD") alleging violations of his constitutional rights under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 19, 2011. The Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for
all pretrial proceedings. All defendants, with the exception of Carlos Collins, moved to
dismiss the case pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation ("Report") finding that because the complaint failed to make any viable
claims of unconstitutional conduct against Lawrence himself. The magistare judge also
found that the complaint did not establish Lawrence's standing to assert constitutional
claims on behalf of family members, did not reference three of the named defendants, and
did not set forth a custom or policy that could be attributed to the municipal defendants, the
claims were subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. Report, ECF No. 19.

1

Carlos Collins, Glenn Brymer, Martin Kroll, William Wilke, and James Fouts are the
individual defendants named in the complaint, alongside the City of Warren and the Warren
Police Department.

Lawrence filed a document containing six purported objections to the Report, as he
was permitted to do under Civil Rule 72(b)(2). Aff. of Objections, ECF No. 20. A review of
the objections shows that they are entirely without merit, and do not address the
conclusions of the Report. First, Lawrence objects to the Report's holding on Lawrence's
standing by claiming that federal prosecutors regularly assert the rights of others. Second,
he opposes the magistrate judge's failure to consider a police report filed by the City with
its motion to dismiss, even though consideration of materials outside the pleadings on a
Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion is impermissible.2 Third, Lawrence simply asserts that he has
made a plausible claim without offering a reason why the magistrate judge erred in finding
to the contrary. Fourth, Lawrence objects to the whole concept of a magistrate judge
reviewing the case. Fifth, Lawrence asks that a jury consider his case because a "brother
code" among government officials prevents him from obtaining justice. Finally, Lawrence
objects to the general rule of waiver for failure to object to a report and recommendation.
The Court reviews any properly filed objections to the Report de novo. Fed R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). As is evident from the summary above, none of Lawrence's objections address
the substantive basis of the magistrate judge's Report, and all rest on frivolous grounds.
Under any standard of review, the objections must be overruled. Accordingly, the Court will
adopt the Report and dismiss James Fouts, William Wilke, Martin Kroll, Glenn Brymer, the
Warren Police Department, and the City of Warren from the case.

2

This objection is intertwined with a lengthy argument about Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966), and related cases. These arguments sidestep the magistrate judge's
findings on Lawrence's standing to assert any sort of constitutional claim on behalf of his
family members. It also mentions a variety of tort claims that were never pled in the
complaint and over which this Court lacks jurisdiction.
2

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Lawrence's objections (docket no. 20) are
OVERRULED, the Report (docket no. 19) is ADOPTED, and the motion to dismiss (docket
no. 10) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: July 5, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on July 5, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager

3