Talbot et al v. Connors

Filing 13

ORDER (1) Overruling 12 Objections to 11 Report and Recommendation; (2) Adopting 11 Report and Recommendation; and (3) Dismissing 1 Complaint With Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR R. TALBOT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-cv-12393
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
TIMOTHY P. CONNORS,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (ECF # 12) TO
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF # 11); (2) ADOPTING
REPORTING AND RECOMMENDATION; AND
(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
In this action, Plaintiffs Arthur Talbot, Kelly Bezrutch, and Internet
Applications and Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) assert a number of
claims against Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Timothy P. Connors. Plaintiffs
generally complain about a series of actions taken by Judge Connors while
presiding over three civil actions in which they were parties. They assert that
Judge Connors was biased; that he allowed attorneys who had contributed to his reelection campaign to represent the opposing parties in the civil actions; that he did
not believe in the premise underlying Plaintiffs’ claims in one of the civil actions
before him; that he deprived Plaintiffs of certain hearings to which they were
entitled; and that he engaged in ex parte communications with opposing counsel.
1

Judge Connors filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF # 7.) Plaintiffs opposed the
motion. (ECF # 9.) Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford, to whom the Court
referred all pre-trial matters (ECF #6), has issued a Report and Recommendation
suggesting that the Court grant Judge Connors’ motion to dismiss (the “R & R”).
(ECF #11.) Magistrate Judge Stafford concluded that all of Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. (Id.) Plaintiffs have filed timely
objections to the R & R. (ECF # 12.) The Court has reviewed the objections, and
for the reasons explained below, the Court overrules them.
In Plaintiffs’ first objection, they argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in
suggesting that judicial immunity barred that portion of their claim that was based
upon alleged ex parte communications between Judge Connors and opposing
counsel. (Objection, ECF #12 at 2, Pg ID 136.) But as the Magistrate Judge
accurately determined, a judge does not lose judicial immunity by engaging in ex
parte communications with one of the attorneys or parties involved in a civil
action. See, e.g., Alexander v. Rosen, 804 F.3d 1203, 1208 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding
that judge was shielded by judicial immunity even though the judge “allegedly
engaged in ex parte communications” with a party); Conklin v. Anthou, 495 Fed.
Appx. 257, 263 (3rd Cir. 2012) (“Nor is judicial immunity lost as a result of
improper favoritism or ex parte communications.”); Crudup v. Schulte, 12 Fed.
2

Appx. 682, 686, n.3 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that judge had judicial immunity
from claim that he engaged in ex parte communication with prosecutor); Schuster
v. Oppelman, 962 F.Supp. 394 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that judge had judicial
immunity from claim that he engaged in ex parte communications as part of
process through which judgment was obtained). Plaintiffs have not shown that
there is any basis for departing from the rule that a judge has judicial immunity
from a claim that he allegedly engaged in ex parte communications.
Plaintiffs next object to the Magistrate Judge’s statement that the corporate
defendant, Internet Applications and Solutions, Inc., improperly appeared in this
action without representation by counsel. This objection does not entitle Plaintiffs
to relief because the Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissing the corporate
defendant’s claims due to its lack of legal counsel. Instead, she recommended
dismissing the claims as barred by judicial immunity. In any event, the Magistrate
Judge correctly observed that a corporate defendant should appear through counsel.
Plaintiffs finally object in a general fashion that the Magistrate Judge’s
ultimate recommendation that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice. But
Plaintiffs have not shown any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or
conclusions. On the contrary, the R & R persuasively demonstrates that Plaintiffs’
claims are barred by judicial immunity.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ objections to the R & R are OVERRULED;
2. The R & R is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court; and
3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and all of the claims therein are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 1, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 1, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4