Nail v. Schrauben et al
Filing
94
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 , and 88 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID WILLIAM NAIL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:15-cv-177
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
AUTUMN SCHRAUBEN, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action in February 2015. The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (Dkt 21). On January 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s due process claims against
Defendants Schrauben, Adams and Hutchins be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted (R&R, Dkt 87).
The Magistrate Judge also issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rodrick, Oesterblad,
Shea and Web Express, LLC be dismissed for failure to state a claim (R&R, Dkt 88). The
Magistrate Judge indicated that any objections “must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen
(14) days” (R&R, Dkt 87 at 5; R&R, Dkt 88 at 7). The matter is presently before the Court on
Plaintiff’s February 5, 2016 filing, which was docketed by the Clerk’s Office as his objections to the
Reports and Recommendations (Dkt 91). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Reports and
Recommendations to which objections have been made. For the following reasons, the Court denies
the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
In his February 5, 2016 filing, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge acted “without
authority or jurisdiction” (Dkt 91 at 2-3). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge
lacked authority or jurisdiction to issue the Reports and Recommendations because of Plaintiff’s
then pending “Motion for Reconsideration and Petition to Transfer Jurisdiction” (Dkt 41), in which
Plaintiff sought reconsideration of an administrative order assigning this case to the undersigned.
Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized
by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). The Court’s jurisdiction in the present case is derived from 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which
provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” and 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which grants
“supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” The propriety of a court’s
internal case reassignment, even if successfully challenged by a litigant, is simply irrelevant to the
jurisdictional determination. See Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. 599, 600 (1840) (explaining that if
the courts “can act upon it judicially, their errors however apparent, their proceedings, inverso
ordine, or contrary to law, have no effect on their jurisdiction, or the validity of its exercise”). The
Court undisputedly possessed jurisdiction and authority to refer this matter to the Magistrate Judge
for issuance of the Reports and Recommendations.
Plaintiff does not otherwise address, let alone pose a meritorious challenge to, the Magistrate
Judge’s analyses of his claims. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge properly conducted
the review of Plaintiff’s Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and properly concluded that
Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff’s objections
are therefore denied.
Because this Opinion and Order resolves the last pending claim in this case, the Court will
also enter a Judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and this
Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of the Judgment would not be
taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on
other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 91) are DENIED, and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 87) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court; specifically,
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Schrauben, Adams and Hutchins are DISMISSED for failure
to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 91) are DENIED, and the Report
and Recommendation (Dkt 88) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court;
specifically, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rodrick, Oesterblad, Shea and Web Express, LLC
are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Dated: February ___, 2016
12
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
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?