Roberts v. Norton Shores, City of et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ROGER DALE ROBERTS,
-vCITY OF NORTON SHORES, et al.,
Honorable Paul L. Maloney
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
and ORDER DISMISSING LAWSUIT
Plaintiff Roger Roberts filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleged
multiple violations of his constitutional rights. Roberts was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) The magistrate judge then reviewed the complaint, as is required by
federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The magistrate judge issued a report recommending the complaint be dismissed
because Roberts fails to state a claim for which this Court may grant relief and also because
Roberts seeks damages from individuals who are immune from the claims alleged against
them. (ECF No. 10.) Roberts filed objections. (ECF No. 11.)
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. '
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de
novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are
frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to Apinpoint those
portions of the magistrate=s report that the district court must specifically consider@). The
United States Supreme Court has held that the statute does not Apositively require[ ] some
lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.@ Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 150 (1985). Failure to file an objection results in a waiver of the issue and the issue
cannot be appealed. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); see also
Arn, 474 U.S. at 155 (upholding the Sixth Circuit=s practice).
The magistrate judge concluded that Roberts’ claims must be dismissed because of
the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Although Roberts objects to the
application of Heck, Roberts did not object to the factual findings which provide the basis
for applying Heck. Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that the claims in the
complaint arise from events that occurred in 2008 and which ultimately resulted in his
conviction on three counts of child sexually abusive activity. Those convictions have not
been overturned. In order for this Court to grant Roberts the relief he requests, this Court
would necessarily have to make factual and legal conclusions that would render his conviction
or sentence in the state courts invalid. And the holding in Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, prevents
this Court from doing so. In order to proceed on his claims, Heck requires Roberts to first
show that his conviction or sentence “has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination,
or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]” Id. at 487.
Here, Roberts acknowledges that his habeas petition is currently held in abeyance while the
state courts are reviewing his conviction. (Obj. at 2 PageID.88.) With this admission,
Roberts is precluded from advancing the claims in this complaint.
With this conclusion, the Court need not consider any of the other justifications for
dismissing the complaint or Roberts’ objections to those justifications.
For this reason, the Court ADOPTS, as its Opinion, the portion of the R&R (ECF
No. 10) that recommends dismissing the lawsuit on the basis of Heck v. Humphrey. And
because the Court finds that Heck renders the claims in this complaint frivolous, the Court
concludes any appeal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 10, 2017
/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
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?