Rogers v. Ryan et al

Filing 125

OPINION and ORDER Rejecting Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Grand's August 23, 2018 113 Order and Affirming that Order. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
D. RODNEY ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Case No. 16-12735
Honorable Linda V. Parker

MATTHEW RYAN, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF
NO. 117) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRAND’S AUGUST 23, 2018 ORDER
(ECF NO. 113) AND AFFIRMING THAT ORDER
This civil rights action arises from Plaintiff’s arrest in 2013. The Court has
referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for all pretrial matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 9.) On August 23, 2018, Magistrate
Judge Grand issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s
motions for leave to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 113.) Plaintiff filed
objections to Magistrate Judge Grand’s decision on September 12, 2018. (ECF
No. 117.)
Standard of Review
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive decision, the
reviewing court must affirm the magistrate judge’s ruling unless the objecting
party demonstrates that it is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.
1

P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The “clearly erroneous” standard does not
empower a reviewing court to reverse a magistrate judge’s finding because it
would have decided the matter differently. See, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City,
N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). Instead, the “clearly erroneous” standard is
met when despite the existence of evidence to support the finding, the court, upon
reviewing the record in its entirety, “is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum
Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend and
Magistrate Judge Grand’s August 23, 2018 Order
In his motions to amend his complaint (ECF Nos. 101, 106), Plaintiff sought
to add three individuals as defendants (Sergeant Saati, Officer Michael Conley, and
Officer Michael O. Brown), the City of Detroit, and the Detroit Police Department
(“DPD”). Plaintiff named Sergeant Saati and Officer Conley as defendants in his
initial complaint, but he misspelled Saati as “Saabi” and service on someone by
that name and Officer Conley could not be accomplished. The Court was informed
that neither individual was a current DPD employee, and that DPD had no last
known address for them.1 In his motions to amend the complaint, Plaintiff

The Court eventually dismissed “Saabi” and Conley as defendants, due to the
inability to serve them. (ECF No. 57.)
2

1

indicated that through discovery he had identified Officer Brown as the “John Doe
#1” defendant named in his initial complaint.
Magistrate Judge Grand granted Plaintiff’s request to add Sergeant Saati and
Officer Brown as defendants. Magistrate Judge Grand denied Plaintiff’s request to
rename Officer Conley, however, as no further information was available to
accomplish service on him. While Plaintiff claimed that Officer Conley could be
served at DPD, Magistrate Judge Grand pointed out that such service would be
fruitless because Officer Conley was no longer a DPD employee. Magistrate
Judge Grand also denied Plaintiff’s request to add the City of Detroit and DPD as
defendants, finding that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a Monell
claim against either entity.
In denying Plaintiff’s request to add these municipal defendants, Magistrate
Judge Grand first concluded that Plaintiff’s request should be construed as a
motion for reconsideration rather than a motion to amend, as he previously made
the same request which was denied on March 27, 2017. (ECF Nos. 39, 40.)
Magistrate Judge Grand indicated that the request was therefore untimely, as a
motion for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after entry of the
order for which reconsideration is sought. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1).
Magistrate Judge Grand further pointed out that a motion for reconsideration is not
an appropriate vehicle for raising new facts or evidence.
3

Plaintiff’s Objections & Analysis
Plaintiff first objects to Magistrate Judge Grand’s statement that Officer
Conley is not a DPD employee, pointing to documents Plaintiff obtained in
discovery which reflect that he is a DPD officer. Those documents, however, are
the report of the 2013 incident from which Plaintiff’s claims arise and a detailed
report of Officer Conley’s activities on that date in 2013. As such, they do not
contradict Magistrate Judge Grand’s finding that Conley is no longer a DPD
employee. Plaintiff does not show how service otherwise can be effectuated on
this individual.2 Thus, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Grand’s
decision to deny Plaintiff’s request to re-name Officer Conley as a defendant.
Plaintiff next objects to Magistrate Judge Grand’s characterization of his
motion to add the City of Detroit and DPD as defendants as a motion for
reconsideration. Plaintiff further objects to Magistrate Judge Grand’s conclusion
that he alleges insufficient facts to support a Monell claim against these defendants.
Magistrate Judge Grand did not clearly err.
First, Plaintiff previously moved to add a Monell claim, asserting the same
“policies” in support of the claim. (See ECF No. 39.) As such, he was asking the
Court to reconsider its previous decision to deny the amendment. In any event,

In his objections, Plaintiff asks the Court to direct Defendants to provide Officer
Conley’s date of termination and the reason for his termination. Such information,
however, will not help identify his whereabouts.
4

2

Magistrate Judge Grand also evaluated Plaintiff’s request to add the City and DPD
as defendants under the standard applicable to a motion to amend. Magistrate
Judge Grand’s conclusion that the amendment would be futile even in the face of
the 2003 consent decree--notably ten years before the incident that gave rise to this
lawsuit—was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
For these reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge
Grand’s August 23, 2018 decision denying Plaintiff’s motions to amend. The
Court affirms that decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 15, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 15, 2018, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

5