United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER: (1) ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION ; (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ; (3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CITY OF DETROIT; (4) DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CITY OF DETROIT
POLICE OFFICERS IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES; AND (5) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT AGAINST JOHN DOES 2-4 IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
a pro se civil rights action against the City of
Detroit and four employees of the City of Detroit Police
Department. Pending before the Court is Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt No. 22. This matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub, who issued a
Report and Recommendation advising the Court to grant
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. See
Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff objects to the Report and
Recommendation. Dkt. No. 31. For the following reasons the
Court will ACCEPT the Report and
brought this action on October 8, 2015, asserting that the
Defendants violated his constitutional rights by arresting,
incarcerating, and prosecuting him on false assault and
weapons charges, which were ultimately
dismissed. At the time of filing, Plaintiff did not
know the names of the City of Detroit employees involved.
Instead, he filed against four unknown “John Doe”
April 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Majzoub ordered the
Plaintiff to show cause why the “John Doe”
Defendants had not been named or served. Dkt. No. 16.
Plaintiff responded, asking the Court to extend the time for
service and simultaneously filing a Motion for Discovery.
Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. On August 26, 2016, Defendant City of
Detroit filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the
Plaintiff responded to. On November 9, 2016, and over the
Defendant City of Detroit's objection, the Court granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery and extended the time of
service. Dkt. No. 26. On January 4, 2017, Plaintiff amended
his Complaint, identifying John Doe # 1 as Cregg Hughes. Dkt.
No. 27. On January 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued
a Report and Recommendation, urging the Court to grant the
Defendant City of Detroit's Motion for Summary Judgment
on two grounds. Dkt. No. 28.
Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommends dismissing
Plaintiff's claims against the City of Detroit in its
entirety and against the employees in their official capacity
pursuant to an order from the Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. Second, Magistrate Majzoub
recommends dismissing the claims against the unnamed John
Does, in their individual capacities, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff objects to both
Bankruptcy Court Proceedings
City of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy in July 2013.
See In Re City of Detroit, Michigan, Case
No. 13-53846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.). Following the bankruptcy
filing, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order establishing
Bar Dates for preserving a law suit against the City of
Detroit. On December 10, 2014, the Eighth Amended Plan for
the Adjustment of Debts for the City of Detroit (hereinafter
“the Plan”) became effective. The Plan provides:
Except as provided in the Plan or in the Confirmation Order,
the rights afforded under the Plan and the treatment of
Claims under the Plan will be in exchange for and in complete
satisfaction, discharge and release of all Claims arising on
or before the Effective Date, including any interest accrued
on Claims from and after the Petition Date. Except as
provided in the Plan or in the Confirmation Order,
Confirmation will, as of the Effective Date, discharge
the City from all Claims or other debts that arose on or
before the Effective Date, and all debts of the kind
specified in section 502(g), 502(h) or 502(i) of the
Bankruptcy Code, whether or not (i) a proof of Claim based on
such debt is Filed or deemed Filed pursuant to section 501 of
the Bankruptcy Code, (ii) a Claim based on such debt is
allowed pursuant to section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code or
(iii) the Holder of a Claim based on such debt has accepted
Id., p. 57.
events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in 2010.
Dkt. No. 1, p. 3 (Pg. ID 3). However, Plaintiff did not file
this action until 2015. Id., p. 16 (Pg. ID 16).
Therefore, to state a viable claim against the City of
Detroit or its officers, Plaintiff must have preserved this
cause of action by filing a proof before the Bar Date. As
best as the Court can tell, Mr. Siner failed to preserve his
claim. The City of Detroit filed a motion to enforce the Bar
Date Order against Mr. Siner. Dkt. No. 22-2. On June 29,
2016, Judge Thomas J. Tucker of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ordered Mr. Siner