Carter et al v. Oakland County Prosecutor

Filing 18

ORDER accepting 17 Report and Recommendation and granting 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STARELLEN CARTER and
C.P., a minor,
Plaintiffs,
V.

Case No. 12-cv-11088
Honorable Denise Page Hood

OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon’s Report and Recommendation.
Starellen Carter filed a complaint pro se on behalf of her minor daughter, alleging prosecutorial
misconduct. The Oakland County Prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 8,
2012. Carter did not file a response. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the
motion to dismiss. Carter has no claim personal to her in this matter and, therefore, cannot appear
on behalf of her minor child.1 See Shepard v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2003). Carter
has not filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
1

The conclusion would remain the same even if Carter represented her minor daughter as
next of friend, guardian ad litem, or other fiduciary capacity. See Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d
963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[P]arents cannot appear pro se on behalf of their minor children
because a minor’s personal cause of action is her own and does not belong to her parent or
representative.”); Lawson v. Edwardsburg Public School, 751 F.Supp. 1257, 1258 (W.D. Mich.
1990) (“While a litigant has the right to act as his or her own counsel, see 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a
non-attorney parent is not permitted to represent the interests of his or her minor child.”)
1

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” Id. A party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further
appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Necessarily, a party’s failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation relieves
the Court from its duty to review the matter independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985). Given that no objection was made to the Magistrate Judge’s findings, the Court will deem
all further objections waived and accept the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 17, filed August 30,
2012] is ACCEPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 11, filed
June 8, 2012] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: March 14, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
March 14, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

2