Stevens et al v. Pfizer, Inc. et al
Filing
99
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 88 ; granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss 62 , 64 , and 67 ; dismissing as moot motion for order 95 ; signed by District Judge Jane M. Beckering (lep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KARRI L. STEVENS and CORINA D.
COOPER,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:23-cv-7
v.
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
PFIZER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Karri L. Stevens and Corina D. Cooper, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various federal and state-law claims arising from the
mandate of the U.S. government that healthcare workers employed at Medicare and Medicaid
eligible facilities receive COVID-19 vaccinations. The mandate provided an exemption for
sincerely held religious beliefs, an exemption that both Plaintiffs were granted. Plaintiffs named
seven Defendants in their suit, and Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The matter was referred
to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that
this Court grant the motions as to Plaintiffs’ federal claims, dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claims,
and close this case. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that (1) Plaintiffs “clearly”
lacked standing to bring their claims against Defendants Pfizer, Inc., Albert Bourla, Vanessa
Gelman, Philip Dormitzer, and Adviat Badkar (collectively, “the Pfizer Defendants”); (2)
Plaintiffs failed to state any plausible federal claims against Defendants The Maples and Nathan
Loop; and (3) this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims
that Plaintiffs alleged, claims that Plaintiffs could instead pursue in the appropriate state court
forum.
The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, to which Defendants filed responses. 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 Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the
Objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiffs present the following five objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation:
1. Is the R&R clearly erroneous and contrary to law to the extent that the
Magistrate failed to report or recommend anything regarding Plaintiffs’ claim
of fraudulent concealment of constitutional claims against the [Pfizer
Defendants]?
2. Is the R&R clearly erroneous and contrary to law to the extent that the
Magistrate dismissed Plaintiffs’ state-law claims after failing to report or
recommend anything regarding Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment of
constitutional claims against the [Pfizer Defendants]?
3. Is the R&R clearly erroneous and contrary to law to the extent that it fails to
adequately consider Plaintiffs’ standing to assert claims against the Pfizer
Defendants?
4. Is the R&R clearly erroneous and contrary to law to the extent that it fails to
recognize the retaliatory actions taken against the Plaintiffs by The Maples and
Nathan Loop, which violated their First Amendment rights?
5. Is the R&R clearly erroneous and contrary to law to the extent that the
recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claims is without justification?
(Pls. Br., ECF No. 90 at PageID.1078).
2
Plaintiffs’ Objections ##1 & 2. In their first two objections, Plaintiffs argue that the
Magistrate Judge “failed to address” their allegation that the Pfizer Defendants engaged in
“fraudulent concealment of constitutional claims” (Pls. Obj., ECF No. 89 at PageID.1074–1075;
Pls. Brief, ECF No. 90 at PageID.1080–1084). According to Plaintiffs, they presented evidence
that Defendants conspired and concealed that the Pfizer vaccine was formulated using “the remains
of aborted babies” and “sacrificed children” (Pls. Brief, ECF No. 90 at PageID.1080 & 1083).
Plaintiffs’ objections lack merit.
Plaintiffs’ pleading titled “Second Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 61), which was the
operative complaint before the Magistrate Judge, 1 consists of 72 allegations, with no discrete
claims for relief identified. See generally FED. R. CIV. P. 8. The Magistrate Judge did not overlook
that Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants fraudulently concealed potential constitutional claims.
Rather, the Magistrate Judge expressly acknowledged that Plaintiffs provided “great detail” in
support of their “conspiracy theories” (R&R, ECF No. 88 at PageID.1071). However, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that even if he assumed that Plaintiffs had suffered an injury-in-fact,
they could not establish that such injury was fairly traceable to any conduct by the Pfizer
Defendants (id. at PageID.1069). The Magistrate Judge correctly recognized that Plaintiffs’ lack
of standing made it unnecessary to address the merits of any additional arguments or claims (id. at
PageID.1068). See Online Merchants Guild v. Cameron, 995 F.3d 540, 547 (6th Cir. 2021) (“To
succeed on the merits, a party must first reach the merits, and to do so it must establish standing.”).
In short, Plaintiffs’ argument fails to demonstrate any error by the Magistrate Judge.
After Defendants filed their motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed motions for leave to amend their
Second Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 72 & 80). The Magistrate Judge denied both of Plaintiffs’
motions (Order, ECF No. 87), determining, in pertinent part, that Plaintiffs’ motions were
“untimely and asserted in bad faith” (id. at PageID.1064).
1
3
Plaintiffs’ Objection #3. Plaintiffs also challenge the Magistrate Judge’s standing analysis,
arguing that the Magistrate Judge failed to “adequately consider” their standing against the Pfizer
Defendants (Pls. Obj., ECF No. 90 at PageID.1078). However, Plaintiffs’ only argument in this
regard is that they “sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact and that such injury is directly traceable
to the actions of the Pfizer Defendants” (Pls. Brief, ECF No. 90 at PageID.1083). Plaintiffs’
conclusory argument fails to identify—let alone demonstrate—any factual or legal error in the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis or ultimate conclusion that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims
against these Defendants. As the Pfizer Defendants reiterated in their response to Plaintiffs’
objections, they had no involvement in the government’s decision to issue the vaccine mandate
and did not employ or otherwise have any say over the conditions of Plaintiffs’ employment (ECF
No. 92 at PageID.1100). Plaintiffs’ third objection lacks merit and is properly denied.
Plaintiffs’ Objection #4. Fourth, Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge “failed to
recognize the retaliatory actions taken against the Plaintiffs by The Maples and Nathan Loop,
which violated their First Amendment rights” (Pls. Obj., ECF No. 89 at PageID.1074–1075; Pls.
Brief, ECF No. 90 at PageID.1082). Plaintiffs’ objection lacks merit. The Magistrate Judge
expressly recognized Plaintiffs’ allegation that after their exemption requests were granted, “their
work hours were reduced, causing Plaintiffs to suffer economic damages” (R&R, ECF No. 88 at
PageID.1066). As set forth more fully by Defendants The Maples and Nathan Loop in their
response to Plaintiffs’ objection (ECF No. 94 at PageID.1120–1121), the Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible retaliation claim because their change in
employment status was a result of their unvaccinated status, which is not an activity protected by
the First Amendment.
4
Plaintiffs’ Objection #5. Last, Plaintiffs contend that the Magistrate Judge should not have
recommended dismissal of their state-law claims without first addressing their federal claims (Pls.
Brief, ECF No. 90 at PageID.1078, 1084). However, Plaintiffs’ objections do not reveal any error
in the Magistrate Judge’s resolution of their federal claims. If a district court has dismissed all
federal claims, then the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Plaintiffs’ last objection is properly denied.
Therefore, this Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. Because the Opinion and Order resolves all pending claims, the Court will
also enter a Judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF Nos. 89–90) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 88) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the
Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 62, 64, & 67) are
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; specifically, the motions are granted as to
Plaintiffs’ federal claims, which are dismissed with prejudice, and the motions are otherwise
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, which are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order (ECF No. 95) is
DISMISSED as moot.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
Dated: May 8, 2024
5
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?