Rogers v. Ryan et al
OPINION and ORDER Rejecting Plaintiff's 59 Objections to Magistrate Judge's 57 Report and Recommendation, and Dismissing Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint Against Defendants Sabbi and Conley Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RODNEY D. ROGERS
Case No. 16-12735
Honorable Linda V. Parker
MATTHEW RYAN, SGT. SABBI,
SERINA KELLEY, JEFFREY MORIN,
MICHAEL CONLEY, JAMES CRAIG,
CITY OF DETROIT MAYOR DAVE BING,
and JOHN DOES 1-2,
OPINION AND ORDER REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MAY 3, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
AGAINST DEFENDANTS SABBI AND CONLEY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(m)
On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed this civil rights action against Defendants. The
matter presently is before the Court due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with a
proper address to serve Defendants Sergeant Sabbi and Michael Conley and on Plaintiff’s
motion for alternate service on these defendants. This matter has been referred for all
pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand.
On May 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Grand issued an order denying Plaintiff’s
motion for alternate service and a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending
that this Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Sabbi
and Conley for failure to timely effectuate service pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 57.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate
Judge Grand informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within
fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on May 16, 2017.
Standard of Review
A party may object to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive orders, such as
Magistrate Judge Grand’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for alternate service. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The reviewing court must affirm the magistrate
judge’s ruling unless the objecting party demonstrates that the magistrate judge’s ruling is
“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Id. 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.”
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 33 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). An order is contrary to law
“when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.”
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 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
of the report and recommendation 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).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Grand’s
decision denying his motion for alternate service and is not convinced that the ruling is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As Magistrate Judge Grand concluded, the Parole
Violation Report, dated July 24, 2013, does not suggest that Plaintiff’s former parole
agent, Edward Parker, and/or Defendant Serina Kelley have information with respect to
the last known address(es) for Defendants Sabbi or Conley, other than their address with
the Detroit Police Department (“DPD”) where they no longer are employed. Further,
Plaintiff fails to show where publication could be made to reasonably assure that
Defendants Sabbi and Conley receive notification of this lawsuit.1 Therefore, this Court
is affirming Magistrate Judge Grand’s decision denying Plaintiff’s motion for alternate
With respect to Magistrate Judge Grand’s recommendation to dismiss without
prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Sabbi and Conley, the Court has made
Michigan Court Rule 2.105(I) allows for service of process pursuant to an
alternate manner provided it is “reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual
notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.”
a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects and
reaches the same conclusion as Magistrate Judge Grand. As to Plaintiff’s first objection,
there is nothing to suggest that the source of Defendant Morin’s address will reveal
Defendants Sabbi’s or Conley’s addresses. Unlike Defendants Sabbi and Conley,
Defendant Morin remains a DPD employee and thus DPD could provide a new address
for him. As to Plaintiff’s second and third objections, he fails to show that Parole Agent
Parker or Defendant Kelley can provide a last known address for Defendants Sabbi or
Conley other than what already has been provided or what manner of publication will
reasonably assure that they receive notice of this lawsuit.
The Court, therefore, is rejecting Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R and adopting
Magistrate Judge Grand’s recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE against Defendants Sergeant Sabbi and Michael Conley pursuant to Rule
4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and these defendants are DISMISSED AS
PARTIES to this lawsuit.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 7, 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, June 7, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail.
s/ R. 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?