Christian v. 43rd District Court for the State of Michigan et al
ORDER Adopting 48 Report and Recommendation:Overruling Christian's Objections and Denying 49 Motion to Disqualify Judge filed by Maurice Bradley Christian; Granting 34 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MAURICE BRADLEY CHRISTIAN,
Case No. 13-cv-12618
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
43RD DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (document no. 48), OVERRULING
CHRISTIAN’S OBJECTION AND DENYING MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY (document no. 49), GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (document no. 34), AND DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff Maurice Bradley Christian, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint
against Michigan’s 43rd District Court, the City of Hazel Park, and various officials for
injuries allegedly suffered during a misdemeanor prosecution in March of 2013.
Supposedly, the defendants unlawfully seized Christian by ordering him to appear for court,
and violated numerous procedural rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Compl., ECF No.
1. The Court referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk. After
protracted discovery efforts, including the issuance of an order to compel Christian to
provide discovery responses, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civil
Rule 37(b)(2). Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 34; Order, ECF No. 29; Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)
(suggesting a court may dismiss an action in whole or in part for failure to obey a discovery
On November 11, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) suggesting the Court grant the motion to dismiss. Report, ECF No. 48. Christian
filed a timely objection to the Report. But, rather than specifically objecting to the proposed
findings and recommendations as required by Civil Rule 72, Christian asked for
reconsideration of his motion to disqualify the magistrate judge for bias. Objection, ECF No.
49; see Intend to Disqualify, ECF No. 32; Order Denying Mot. Recusal, ECF No. 38.1
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
De novo review is only required if the parties “serve and file specific written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Having reviewed
the Report’s analysis, in light of the record, the Court finds its conclusions are factually
based and legally sound. As Christian has failed to file any specific objections to the
Report’s findings, the Court will overrule his objections and adopt the Report. The
defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted, and the case dismissed.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
(document no. 48) is ADOPTED. Christian’s Objection (document no. 49) is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christian's Motion to Disqualify (document no. 49)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (document no.
34) is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Though styled as a motion to disqualify, Christian's request is essentially a motion to
reconsider. Christian had previously moved to disqualify Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk and
that motion was denied. ECF No. 38. Under Local Rule 7.1(h), motions for reconsideration
must be filed within 14 days of entry of the order. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h). Motions for
reconsideration that “merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either
expressly or by reasonable implication” will not be granted. Id. Christian’s request for
reconsideration of his motion to disqualify is not only untimely and improperly filed, but it
presents no new evidence or issues. Accordingly, it is denied.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: December 12, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on December 12, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?