Bradley v. Elite Property Management
OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 32 Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting Defendant's 19 Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Denying as Moot Plaintiff's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment, 27 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and 31 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-14468
Honorable Linda V. Parker
ELITE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
JANUARY 11, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 32];
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 19];
AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NOS. 18, 27, 31]
Plaintiff Ronald Bradley commenced this lawsuit against Defendant Elite
Property Management on December 28, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) In his complaint,
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights, “lease
agreement, and the federal [government’s] low income housing tax program.” (Id.
at Pg ID 1-2.) The matter had been referred for all pretrial matters to Magistrate
Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis. (ECF No. 12.)
On April 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No.
18.) Less than a week later, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 19.) On April 21,
2016, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Amended Statement of Jurisdiction.”
(ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff recently filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a
motion to amend the preliminary injunction motion. (ECF Nos. 27, 31.)
Magistrate Judge Davis issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on
January 11, 2017. (ECF No. 32.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis finds that
Plaintiff did not allege any cognizable claim in his complaint. (Id. at Pg ID 153.)
In his Amended Statement of Jurisdiction, Plaintiff stated his claim arose under the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988; 18 U.S.C. § 1512; and 18 U.S.C. § 2071. (ECF
No. 21 at Pg ID 111.) However, Magistrate Judge Davis notes that Plaintiff’s
allegations under the Fourth Amendment and most of his civil rights claims under
Title 42 do not indicate he suffered the deprivation of any constitutional right.
(ECF No. 32 at Pg ID 154.) Further, Magistrate Judge Davis states that none of
Plaintiff’s allegations suggest any constitutional violation by any person acting
under the color of state law because Defendant is a private company. (Id.) The
magistrate judge’s report also dismisses Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
because he failed to allege the elements of the claim. (Id. at Pg ID 155.)
Magistrate Judge Davis concludes her opinion by recommending that Defendant’s
motion to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment
and preliminary injunction be denied as moot. (Id. at Pg ID 157.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis advises the parties
that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service
upon them. (Id.) She further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file
specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id., citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human
Servs., 932 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 1991)).
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s R&R on a dispositive
matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the
reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942,
944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to
certain conclusions to an R&R waives any further right to appeal on those issues.
See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.
1987). Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate
judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review those
issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
In his objections, Plaintiff first attempts to satisfy the elements of a claim
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981 protects against racial
discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts. See Domino's Pizza,
Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 476 (2006) (“Section 1981offers relief when
racial discrimination blocks the creation of a contractual relationship, as well as
when racial discrimination impairs an existing contractual relationship.”) To
establish a claim under Section 1981, a plaintiff must allege facts in support of the
following elements: (1) plaintiff is a member of a racial minority, (2) defendant
intended to discriminate on the basis of race, and (3) the discrimination concerned
one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute (i.e., make and enforce
contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence, etc.). Johnson v. Harrell, 142 F.3d 434,
1998 WL 57356 (6th Cir.1998) (citing Morris v. Office Max, Inc., 89 F.3d 411, 413
(7th Cir.1996). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is aware that Plaintiff is a member
of a racial minority; Defendant violated the terms of the lease in Plaintiff’s
neighborhood but “would not repeatedly violate the lease in a predominantly white
apartment tenant building or a predominantly white community”; and “Defendant
failed to provide enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of the
contractual relationship.” (ECF No. 33 at Pg ID 159.)
Plaintiff does not adequately plead a cognizable claim under Section 1981.
Plaintiff does not state or provide facts demonstrating that, if true, Defendant
intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based on his race. Plaintiff also fails to
allege facts that show an impaired contractual relationship between the parties. To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need not contain “detailed factual
allegations,” but it must contain more than “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . ..” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff provides the Court only with
“labels and conclusions.”
In his second objection, Plaintiff states that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over his claims “given that there are cognizable federal claims.” This
Court disagrees. The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the
conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Davis. The Court therefore adopts
Magistrate Judge Davis’s January 11, 2017 R&R and adopts the recommendations
in the R&R.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for summary
judgment, for preliminary injunction, and to amend his motion for preliminary
injunction (ECF Nos. 18, 27, 31) are DENIED AS MOOT.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 3, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, February 3, 2017, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ Richard Loury
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?