Brown v. Barnett et al

Filing 27

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation 25 and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDMOND W. BROWN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 16-13451
Honorable Denise Page Hood

LARRY BARNETT,
ARTHUR LEAVELL,
GREGORY TOURVILLE,
MATTHEW BRAY,
AMY MATELIC,
STEVEN RILEY,
STEPHEN GEELHOOD,
and CITY OF DETROIT,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING ACTION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s
Report and Recommendation. [#25]
Pro se Plaintiff Edmond W. Brown, Jr. filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendants Larry Barnett, Arthur Leavell, Gregory Tourville, Matthew
Bray, Amy Matelic, Steven Riley, Stephen Geelhood, and the City of Detroit on
September 22, 2016. On November 11, 2016, Defendants City of Detroit and Steven
Rile filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss. [#10] The remaining Defendants filed a Notice

of Joinder. [#20] Plaintiff filed a response, to which Defendants replied. Plaintiff also
filed a second answer to the Motion to Dismiss.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss for two reasons: (1) the lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
federal claim pursuant to the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994); and (2) the absence of reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining claims. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed by
the due date of March 22, 2017, but on March 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “response”
(rather than an objection) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In
his response, Plaintiff conceded that his civil action should be dismissed without
prejudice as to all defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Heck
doctrine, which provides that:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction
or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983
plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on
direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question
by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, . . . . A claim for
damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not
been invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
2

determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching
his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility
findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and
should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s
decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the
evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision
of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a
different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984);
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no
error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised
an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have
waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure
to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474
3

U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 25, filed
March 3, 2017] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket
No. 10, filed November 7, 2016] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: April 14, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on April 14, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4