Brown v. Detroit, City of et al

Filing 55

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING 50 Plaintiff's Objections; Adopting 46 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING 24 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; TERMINATING AS MOOT 49 Motion for Summary Disposition and 51 Motion for Leave to File 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.
/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS;
(2) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(4) TERMINATING LATER-FILED MOTIONS AS MOOT
This is a civil rights case stemming from the arrest of pro se Plaintiff Henry
Brown, who was subsequently determined to be innocent and released after 270 days
detention. (See Dkt. # 23.) Pending before the court is the report and recommendation
(Dkt. # 46) of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, to whom the case had
been referred to for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Defendants
City of Detroit and Latonya Brooks have filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #
46.) The magistrate judge recommends that this motion be granted, finding that no
Fourteenth Amendment violation exists because the allegedly improper photographic
lineup was never introduced at trial and Plaintiff’s remaining claims are barred by the
existence of a valid warrant, the absence of necessary evidence, or are otherwise
improper. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed what purport to be objections to the report and
recommendation (Dkt. # 50) and Defendants have filed a response. (Dkt. # 53.) The

court will deem Plaintiff’s objections waived, adopt the report and recommendation, and
grant the motion for summary judgment the reasons provided below.
The filing of timely objections requires the court to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). See United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667 (1980); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). This de novo
review requires this court to examine the relevant pleadings and such evidence as may
have been submitted in support of the motions. A failure to file objections, or a failure to
file specific objections, constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. United States
v. Walters, 638 F2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v.
Sec’y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991).
In order for this court to apply meaningful de novo review, it is insufficient for the
objecting party to simply incorporate by reference earlier pleadings or reproduce an
earlier unsuccessful motion for dismissal or judgment (or response to the other party’s
dispositive motion). Insufficient objections to a magistrate judge’s analysis will ordinarily
be treated by the court as an unavailing general objection. See Spencer v. Bouchard,
449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Overly general objections do not satisfy the
objection requirement.”).
Plaintiff’s filings raises six “objections,” all of which simply restate arguments that
Plaintiff raised in the underlying briefing and the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation addressed at length. Plaintiff neglects to even mention the magistrate
judge’s analysis. The court finds Plaintiff’s purported objections to be improper and, as a
result, Plaintiff has waived any objection to the report and recommendation. See

2

Spencer, 449 F.3d at 725. The court has reviewed the underlying briefing and finds the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to be well-reasoned, thorough, and
correct. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. # 50) are OVERRULED. The
report and recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety and incorporated by reference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
# 24) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Disposition”
(Dkt. # 49) and “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint” (Dkt. # 51) are
TERMINATED AS MOOT.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/

Dated: June 9, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, June 9, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\12-13402.BROWN.adopt.r&r.grant.sj.TLH.docx

3

/