Bryant et al v. Jenkins et al

Filing 29

ORDER Accepting 18 , 19 Reports and Recommendations and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAVERE BRYANT and
ASTRIN CHANDLER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-14181
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
SALLY JENKINS, DANEALE JOYCE
HAGAMAN-CLARK, LEAH BRONSON,
and FLAG STAR BANK,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
and
DISMISSING ACTION
I.

BACKGROUIND/STANDARD OF REVIEW
This matter is before the Court on two Reports and Recommendations (Doc.

Nos. 18 and 19) filed by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand recommending summary
dismissal of the instant action filed by Plaintiffs Lavere Bryant and Astrin Chandler.
Objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. Nos. 20, 23, 24)
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). The

Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate.” Id. In order to preserve the right to
appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the
Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932 F2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
II.

THIS COURT’S REVIEW OF THE R&Rs
A.

Plaintiff’s Chandler’s Complaint

After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as to
Plaintiff Chandler’s Complaint, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff Bryant cannot pursue Plaintiff Chandler’s claims on her behalf pursuant to
the federal law prohibiting pro se individuals from representing other litigants.
(R&R, No. 19, Pg ID 84) As noted by the Magistrate Judge the original Complaint
only bears Plaintiff Bryant’s signature. However, after the R&Rs and Objections
thereto were filed, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint claiming that the
proposed Amended Complaint now bears Plaintiff Chandler’s signature and makes
clear that Plaintiff Chandler is pursuing her own claims, not Plaintiff Bryant on
2

Plaintiff Chandler’s behalf.
This Court’s review of the proposed Amended Complaint shows Plaintiff
Chandler’s purported signature, but it is noted that all the documents are mailed from
Plaintiff Bryant’s current place of imprisonment. The factual allegations and claims
in the proposed Amended Complaint are the same as in the original Complaint.
Inasmuch as the proposed Amended Complaint purports to correct the lack of
Plaintiff Chandler’s signature on the Complaint and to make clear that she is bringing
the lawsuit on her own behalf, the Court allows the amended complaint and the Court
considers such in reviewing the R&Rs. Because the Court is now considering the
Amended Complaint with Plaintiff Chandler’s purported signature, the Court will
consider the Magistrate Judge’s alternative recommendation that the claims by
Plaintiff Chandler be dismissed.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Chandler alleges
claims against Assistant Prosecutor Danielle Hagaman-Clark and Police Officer Leah
Bronson.

The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff

Chandler’s claim against Defendant Hagaman-Clark is barred by prosecutorial
immunity. As to Plaintiff Chandler’s claim against Defendant Bronson, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The Court
3

further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Chandler’s allegations against
Defendant Bronson are conclusions with no factual basis. Plaintiff Chandler’s claims
alleged in the Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.
B.

Plaintiff Bryant’s Complaint

After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation at to
Plaintiff Bryant’s Complaint, the Court finds that his findings and conclusions are
also correct. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Bryant has
previously filed at least three prisoner civil rights lawsuits which were dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As concluded by the
Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff Bryant falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s
three strike provision. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
contrary to Plaintiff Bryant’s argument that the three strike provision does not apply
to him as a pretrial detainee, the Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to detainees
awaiting trial and are considered prisoners for purposes of the PLRA. By his own
admission set forth in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Bryant has filed previous
lawsuits as a prisoner. The three strike provision under the PLRA governs Plaintiff
Bryant’s Amended Complaint. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff does not meet the statute’s “imminent danger” exception. Plaintiff Bryant’s
in forma pauperis status is revoked and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s (No. 18) is

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s (No. 19)
is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections (Nos. 20, 23, 24) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint
(No. 26) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint
(No. 12) is MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Summons (No.
13) is MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Petition for Confidentiality (No. 17)
as to Plaintiffs’ address is DENIED since a party’s contact information is required
under the rules (E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(1) and LR 11.2) and are public information to
be recorded by the Clerk. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 5, 5.2, 79.
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate
Consideration (No. 16) is MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order Granting Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs as to Plaintiff Bryant is RESCINDED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as
to Plaintiff Chandler and without prejudice as to Plaintiff Bryant. Plaintiff Bryant
may refile his lawsuit only upon payment of the appropriate filing fees.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: November 4, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on November 4, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

6