Webb v. Bazzy et al
ORDER Adopting 30 Report and Recommendation; Granting in part and Denying in part Defendants' 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:16-cv-12761
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
MOHAMAD BAZZY, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION  AND GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
On November 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and
Recommendation ( the "Report") regarding Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
ECF 30. Neither party filed objections within the 14 days allowed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The Report recommended granting the motion in part because Webb indicated that he was
not moving forward with his illegal search and seizure claim, but the Report recommended
denying the motion as to Webb's excessive force claims as to all five defendant police
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is required only if the parties "serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). Because neither party filed objections, de novo review of the Report's
conclusions is not required. After reviewing the record, the Court finds that the magistrate
judge's conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, the Court will adopt
the Report's findings and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion for summary
Magistrate Judge Grand found that Defendants Cecile, Shepherd, and Williams were
not entitled to qualified immunity because they argued only that Officer Bazzy did not utilize
excessive force. They did not present any argument regarding whether—notwithstanding
a finding that Officer Bazzy did use excessive force—they owed Webb a duty of protection.
Qualified immunity is "an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability."
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (emphasis in original). Immunity is not a mere
defense to liability, but a privilege to be free from the burdens of litigation. See Cochran v.
Gilliam, 656 F.3d 300, 311 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526). Courts treat
a summary denial of qualified immunity as evidence that "the district court had [not] entirely
taken to heart the Supreme Court's instruction to courts about the duty to treat seriously
motions raising immunity and to grant qualified immunity at the earliest possible point in the
litigation." Logan v. Slaton, 508 F.3d 576, 579 n.5 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Anderson v.
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) and Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985)). Officers
Cecile, Shepherd, and Williams may still be shielded from suit by qualified immunity if they
did not owe a duty of protection to Webb. And thus, trying claims against those three
Defendants if they are immune could undermine the very purpose of the qualified immunity
principle. In an abundance of caution, therefore, the Court will order Defendants Cecile,
Shepherd, and Williams to state whether they intend to abandon any other potential
qualified immunity defenses.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Report and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment  is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Cecile, Shepherd, and Williams shall
FILE, within ten days of the date of this Order, a status update stating whether they are
abandoning any remaining qualified immunity defenses.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: December 8, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 8, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/David P. Parker
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?