Dickey v. Canton Michigan Police Department et al
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 52 denying pltf's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting deft's 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
THADDEUS R. DICKEY,
Case No. 16-10118
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CANTON,
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
JULY 24, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
In a report and recommendation ("R & R") issued on July 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand has recommended that the Court (i) deny the motion for summary
judgment filed by pro se Plaintiff Thaddeus R. Dickey, and (ii) grant Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the R & R on July 31, 2017. For the
reasons that follow, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections and adopts the R & R in its
Although Plaintiff has not clearly delineated his specific points of disagreement with
the Magistrate Judge's analysis, he appears to advance three objections to the R & R.
First, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge unduly discounted statements in his
affidavit purportedly demonstrating (i) that he did not engage in conduct that would support
charges of loitering or soliciting, and (ii) that one of the defendant law enforcement officers,
Officer Kuznicki, engaged in racial profiling. Yet, as explained in the R & R, the lawfulness
of Plaintiff's arrest does not turn upon whether he was actually guilty of loitering or
soliciting, but upon whether the arresting officer, Defendant Champagne, could reasonably
have concluded from the facts known to him at the time that there was probable cause to
arrest Plaintiff for these offenses. See R & R at 14; see also Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d
259, 263 (6th Cir. 1988) (explaining that a police officer "is under no obligation to give any
credence to a suspect's story[,] nor should a plausible explanation in any sense require the
officer to forgo arrest pending further investigation if the facts as initially discovered
provide probable cause"). Likewise, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts in his affidavit, or has
claimed elsewhere in the record, that Officer Kuznicki singled him out for mistreatment
because he is black, the Magistrate Judge correctly observed that conclusory assertions
of racial profiling do not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for a Fourteenth Amendment
claim of disparate treatment on account of race. See R & R at 19.
Plaintiff next protests that the Court denied his request for appointment of counsel.
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly addressed this issue in an October 7, 2016 order,
explaining that appointment of counsel in a civil case is warranted only in exceptional
circumstances, and the Court finds no basis for disturbing the Magistrate Judge's finding
that such circumstances are not presented here.
Finally, in the event that the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's R & R, Plaintiff
requests that the resulting dismissal of this case be without prejudice. Yet, Plaintiff was
given an opportunity to pursue discovery in support of his claims, and the Magistrate Judge
has determined — and the Court agrees — that Defendants are entitled to an award of
summary judgment in their favor on each of Plaintiff's claims. Under these circumstances,
dismissal with prejudice is warranted.
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's July 31, 2017 objections 
and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's July 24, 2017 report and recommendation . In
accordance with these rulings, Plaintiff's April 4, 2017 motion for summary judgment 
is DENIED, and Defendants' February 7, 2017 motion for summary judgment  is
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: August 30, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on August 30, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol J. Bethel
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?