Brown v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 43

ORDER AFFIRMING 40 Order, OVERRULING 41 Objection filed by Henry Brown, AFFIRMING 23 Order AND OVERRULING 26 Objection filed by Henry Brown. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

HENRY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-13402

CITY OF DETROIT and LATONYA
BROOKS,
Defendants.
/
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Henry Brown, a pro se prisoner, has filed Objections to Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand’s Order Denying Brown’s Motion of Leave to File a Supplemental
Complaint and Motion for Discovery. (Dkt. # 26.) More recently, Brown also filed an
Objection to Judge Grant’s Order Denying Brown’s Motion for Additional Discovery.
(Dkt. # 41.) The court will treat both of Brown’s objections to these Orders as appeals.
For the reasons set forth below, the court will overrule Brown’s Objections and will
affirm the magistrate judge’s orders.
I. STANDARD
Objections to orders issued by magistrate judges are treated as appeals subject
to the “clearly erroneous” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Brown v.
Rapelje, No. 1:09-CV-639, 2012 WL 4490769, at *1 (W.D.Mich. Sept. 28, 2012). As
such, the “decision and order of a non-dispositive motion by a magistrate judge will be
upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Koetje v. Norton, No. 1312739, 2014 WL 2005021, at *1 (E.D.Mich. May 16, 2014).

II. DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Objections to July 26, 2013 Order
Brown objects to the magistrate judge’s July 26, 2013 Order denying Brown’s
Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint, which the magistrate judge
construed as a motion to amend. (Dkt. # 23.) The magistrate judge denied Brown’s
motion because (a) Brown failed to attach a proposed amended complaint in violation of
E.D. Mich. LR 15.1; (b) failed to provide any explanation for why he chose not to name
the three additional defendants he wishes to add now in his original complaint; and (c)
does not have the contact information for several of the proposed new defendants,
severely complicating service of process. (Dkt. # 23, Pg. ID 145-46.) The magistrate
judge (d) also noted that he was concerned that Brown’s proposed amendment was
brought in bad faith and (e) found that adding several of the proposed new defendants
would be futile under both federal and Michigan law. (Id. at Pg. ID 145-148.) Brown
has offered no reason why the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion was clearly
erroneous, nor has he filed an amended complaint. As such, the court finds no basis to
reverse the order.
Brown also objects to the magistrate judge’s denial of Brown’s Motion for
Discovery in the same order. (Dkt. # 23.) In his original motion, Brown requested
documents from John L. Casey, who, in a separate motion, he had moved to be added
as an additional defendant. (Dkt. # 19, Pg. ID 117.) As mentioned above, the
magistrate judge denied Brown’s motion to amend his complaint and add Casey as a
defendant. (Dkt. # 23, Pg. ID 145-46, 148.) Accordingly, the magistrate judge also
denied Brown’s Motion for Discovery as a matter of law because Casey was not a party

2

opponent. (Dkt. # 23, Pg. ID 148-49.) In his objection, Brown offers no reason why the
magistrate judge’s order denying this motion was clearly erroneous. As a result, the
court finds no basis to reverse this order, either.
B. Plaintiff’s Objection to February 3, 2015 Order
Brown also objects to the magistrate judge’s February 3, 2015 Order denying
Brown’s Motion for Additional Discovery. (Dkt. # 41.) The magistrate judge denied the
motion because (a) Brown failed to attach any actual interrogatories or requests to his
motion, making it unclear whether he fully complied with the service requirements in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34; and (b) Brown’s motion requested
documents and information from non-parties, in clear violation of federal discovery
rules. (Dkt. # 40, Pg. ID 484-85.) In his objection, Brown reasserts that the information
and documents he requested are important to his case, but fails to provide the court
with a reason the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion was clearly erroneous as
a matter of law. Consequently, the court finds no basis to reverse this order.
III. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Brown’s objections (Dkt. # 26) are OVERRULED, and the
magistrate judge’s July 26, 2013 order (Dkt. # 23) is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown’s February 17, 2015 objection (Dkt.
# 41) is OVERRULED, and the magistrate judge’s February 3, 2015 order (Dkt # 40) is
AFFIRMED.
S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 31, 2015
3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, August 31, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\12-13402.BROWN.DenialofObjections.JAH.wpd

4