United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS,
AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THE ACTION IN ITS
MARIANNE O. BATTANI United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff Parrish Redd's Opposition Motion
to Defendants Marty Peters, Chris Hugan and Terrance
Vails' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 87). Though entitled an
“Opposition Motion, ” the Court interprets this
filing as an objection to the recently filed Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge R.
Steven Whalen considered Defendants Marty Peters and Chris
Hugan's and Terrance Vails' Motions to Dismiss on the
Pleadings, and, on February 21, 2017, entered an R&R.
(Doc. 86). In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Whalen
recommended that the Court grant these motions, sua
sponte dismiss with prejudice the other Defendants, and
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
Additionally, Magistrate Judge Whalen recommended that the
Court bar Plaintiff from filing any future complaints against
these Defendants or involving the film “Pawn
Shop” without first obtaining leave of the Court. For
the reasons that follow, the Court overrules Plaintiff's
objections, ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS Defendants Marty
Peters and Chris Hugan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 79),
GRANTS Defendant Terrance Vail's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
80), and sua sponte DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the
present action in its entirety. Further, the Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Plaintiff must
obtain leave of the Court prior to filing any further
complaints against these Defendants of involving the film
STATEMENT OF FACTS
parties have not objected to the R&R's recitation of
the facts, the Court adopts that portion of the R&R.
(See Doc. 86, pp. 2-4).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to statute, this Court's standard of review for a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation requires 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)(C). A
judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge. Id.
legal standards for determining motions to dismiss pursuant
to Rule 12(b) and Rule 12(c) are the same. Lindsay v.
Yates, 498 F.3d 434, 437 n.4 (6th Cir. 2007). When
ruling on a Rule 12(c) motion, the court must take as true
"all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings
of the opposing party, " and "the motion may be
granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly
entitled to judgment." JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.
Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting
So. Ohio Bank v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc., 479 F.2d 478, 480 (6th Cir.1973)). However,
the court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or
unwarranted factual inferences." Id. at 581-82
(quoting Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th
court is to grant a Rule 12(c) motion "when no material
issue of fact exists and the party making the motion is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.
at 582 (quoting Paskvan v. City of Cleveland Civil Serv.
Comm'n, 946 F.2d 1233, 1235 (6th Cir.1991)).
"There must be no material issue of fact that could
prevent judgment for the moving party." Monroe
Retail, Inc. v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 589 F.3d 274, 2009
WL 4749352, at *3 (6th Cir. 2009).
objections to the R&R, Plaintiff asserts that the
Magistrate Judge erred in recommending granting the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss because the Clerk of the
Court has previously filed Entries of Default against
Defendants Marty Peters and Chris Hugan. Plaintiff has filed
numerous, repetitive motions seeking default judgment against
Defendants Peters and Hugan, and both Magistrate Judge Whalen
and this Court have denied all of these motions (See
Doc. 42, 46, 51, 55, 57, 59, 66, 70, 72, 74). Having already
determined the merits of this argument many times over, the
Court declines to do so again but refers Plaintiff to the
reasoning set forth in the above-referenced docket entries.
remainder of Plaintiff's objections concern allegations
that certain of the Defendants are stalking him, invading his
privacy, posting false and malicious statements online, and
impersonating a federal magistrate judge by creating a
fraudulent federal court opinion. Even if true, these
allegations have no bearing on either the Defendants'
motions to dismiss or Plaintiff's copyright infringement
claim as a whole.
reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the conclusions
set forth therein. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation; GRANTS Defendants
Marty Peters and Chris Hugan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
79), GRANTS Defendant Terrance Vail's Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 80), and sua sponte DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE
the present action in its entirety. Further, the Court adopts
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Plaintiff must