Hawkins v. Detroit Public Schools et al

Filing 43

ORDER (1) Overruling Defendants' 39 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 35 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition, and (3) Denying Defendants' 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALEXYS C. HAWKINS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-10316
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS (ECF #39) TO
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(ECF #35), (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #23)
In this action, Plaintiff Alexys Hawkins claims that the Defendants, the
Detroit Public Schools and four Detroit Public Schools Police Department police
officers, used excessive force against her when they arrested her on February 15,
2013. (See Complaint, ECF #1.) On September 18, 2016, the Defendants moved
for summary judgment. (See ECF #23.) Among other things, the Defendants argued
that (1) Hawkins’ claims were barred by the United States Supreme Court’s decision
in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), (2) Defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity, and (3) Hawkins could not establish municipal liability with respect to
Detroit Public Schools. (See id.)

1

On May 5, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “R&R”) in which he recommended that the Court deny
Defendants’ motion. (See ECF #35.) Following an unsuccessful attempt to resolve
this dispute, Defendants filed timely objections to the R&R on June 5, 2017. (See
ECF #39.)
Defendants’ objections are deficient because they do not attempt to show an
error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. In fact, the objections never mention that
analysis. They refer to the R&R only in passing – with the sole references being
their requests that the Court “decline the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation” (see,
e.g., Objections, ECF #39 at Pg. ID 870) – without ever addressing the substance of
the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. And the objections do not address most of the
case law upon which the Magistrate Judge relied. Instead of attempting to show how
and where the Magistrate Judge erred, Defendants repeat, in many instances
verbatim, the same factual background and legal argument sections that were
presented in the motion papers and reply. (Compare, e.g., Summary Judgment Mot.,
ECF #23 at Pg. ID 226-236, 241-42, and 869-70 to Objections, ECF #39 at Pg. ID
857-866, 869-70, and 876; and Summary Judgment Reply Br., ECF #30 at Pg. ID
768-69 to Objections, ECF #39 at Pg. ID 868-69.).
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held, where a
party presents objections that do “not specifically address how [a] report’s factual
2

and legal recommendations [are] incorrect,” those objections are “waived.” Fields
v. Lapeer 71-A District Court Clerk, 2 Fed. App’x 481, 482 (6th Cir. 2001). Indeed,
where an objecting party fails to focus the district court’s attention on a specific flaw
in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, “the initial reference to the magistrate [ends up
being] useless. The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both
the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time
and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the
purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Svcs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2001). Because Defendants have failed to address the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis, the Court deems their objections ineffective and
waived. See Potter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2015 WL 452173, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb.
3, 2015) (holding objections to report and recommendation were waived where
objections were “nothing more than a re-submission of [plaintiff’s] original motion
for summary judgment” and did not address reasoning of the Magistrate’s report).
Defendants’ objections suffer from an additional flaw: they have introduced a
new argument that was not included in their motion papers and reply. The new
argument relates to Defendants’ qualified immunity defense. In Defendants’ motion
papers, they argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity in part because
Plaintiff’s testimony about the conduct of the Defendants at her criminal trial was
speculative. (See Summary Judgment Mot, ECF #23 at Pg. ID 244-45.)
3

In

Defendants’ objections, they argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for a
different reason: because the officers “were faced with a rapidly evolving, tense and
uncertain chaotic scenario where they were severally outnumbered and students
were pushing, running and fighting all over the school.” (Objections, ECF #39 at Pg.
ID 875.) The Court sees no compelling reason to permit Defendants to raise this
new argument in their objections, and thus the Court declines to consider it. See
Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that “[c]ourts
have held that while the Magistrate Judge Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq., permits de
novo review by the district court if timely objections are filed, absent compelling
reasons, it does not allow parties to raise at the district court stage new arguments or
issues that were not presented to the magistrate”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF #39) are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (ECF #23) is ADOPTED and the motion is therefore
DENIED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 12, 2017

4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on July 12, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5