O'Mara v Community Mental Health of Washtenaw County

Filing 58

ORDER Adopting 52 Report and Recommendation, Granting 9 Motion to Dismiss filed by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Gretchen Whitmer, Elizabeth Hertel, and Denying 36 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Injunctive Relief and Sanctions filed by Jacob O'Mara. Signed by District Judge Shalina D. Kumar. (THal)

Case 4:21-cv-12278-SDK-CI ECF No. 58, PageID.976 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JACOB O’MARA,

Plaintiff,

v.
COMMUNITY MENTAL
HEALTH OF WASHTENAW
COUNTY et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 21-12278
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 52),
GRANTING THE STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF
NO. 9), DISMISSING STATE DEFENDANTS FROM THE CASE, AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 36)

Plaintiff Jacob O’Mara sued the Michigan Department of Health and
Human Services, Elizabeth Hertel, Governor Gretchen Whitmer (“State
Defendants”), and Community Mental Health of Washtenaw County
(“WCCMH”) on September 28, 2021. ECF No. 1. The State Defendants
moved to dismiss (ECF No. 9), Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 22), and the
State Defendants replied (ECF No. 32). WCCMH did not respond to the
State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and takes no position on the motion or
Page 1 of 4

Case 4:21-cv-12278-SDK-CI ECF No. 58, PageID.977 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 4

the requested relief. ECF No. 35, PageID.540. Plaintiff filed an amended
motion for injunctive relief and sanctions (ECF No. 36) to which State
Defendants (ECF No. 45) and WCCMH (ECF No. 47) responded. Both
motions were referred to the magistrate judge. ECF Nos. 24, 39.
On August 8, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. 52. The R&R recommends that the
Court GRANT the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) and
that the State Defendants be DISMISSED from this case. It further
recommends that Plaintiff’s amended motion for summary judgment and
request for injunctive relief and sanctions (ECF No. 36) be DENIED.
Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R (ECF No. 55), and both the State
Defendants and WCCMH responded (ECF Nos. 56; 57).
Plaintiff filed no objections to the portion of the R&R which
recommended denying his amended motion for summary judgment and
request for injunctive relief and sanctions (ECF No. 36). O’Mara therefore
failed to preserve any objection to these recommendations, and they are
ADOPTED. See Willis v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390,
401 (6th Cir. 1991).

Page 2 of 4

Case 4:21-cv-12278-SDK-CI ECF No. 58, PageID.978 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 4

O’Mara filed four objections to the portion of the R&R which
recommended granting the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No.
55. These objections focused on the State Defendants’ Eleventh
Amendment defenses as discussed in the R&R. Id. O’Mara failed to file any
objections to the R&R’s separate conclusion that, regardless of whether the
Eleventh Amendment shields them from immunity, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) requires dismissal of all his claims against the State
Defendants because O’Mara failed to plead them with any particularity.
ECF Nos. 52; 55. O’Mara waived his objections to this Rule 12(b)(6)
recommendation by not including them in his objections. Willis v. Sec’y of
Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d at 401; United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). It is therefore ADOPTED.
Because the 12(b)(6) recommendation will result in the dismissal of
all claims against the State Defendants, O’Mara’s objections regarding their
Eleventh Amendment defenses are moot. Those objections are therefore
DENIED.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 9) is GRANTED and the State Defendants are DISMISSED.
Page 3 of 4

Case 4:21-cv-12278-SDK-CI ECF No. 58, PageID.979 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended motion for
summary judgment and request for injunctive relief and sanctions (ECF No.
36) is DENIED.

Dated: September 19, 2022

s/Shalina D. Kumar
SHALINA D. KUMAR
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4