United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Patricia T. Morris Magistrate Judge
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge
March 6, 2017, Plaintiff Mark Adams, proceeding pro
se, initiated the above captioned action by filing his
complaint against twelve named defendants, including various
officials of Bridgeport Township, members of the Bridgeport
Township police force, local attorneys, Michigan district
court judges, and Saginaw County Sheriff William Federspiel.
See ECF No. 1. Adams then filed a first amended
complaint on March 23, 2017. See ECF No. 7. The
matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
for pretrial management. See ECF No. 4. On May 25,
2017 the magistrate judge issued a report pursuant to the IFP
screening procedure set forth at 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), recommending that the majority of Adam's
claims be dismissed. See ECF No. 9. Adams filed
objections to that report on June 12, 2017. See ECF
No.11. For the reasons stated below, Adams's objections
will be overruled and the report and recommendation will be
Adams' claims stem from a long-running dispute with
officials of Bridgeport, Michigan regarding zoning and
property rights. Beginning in 2011, he alleges that township
officials ordered the mowing of his field and charged him
$200 in fines for the mowing, and ordered him to remove a
Winnebago Recreational Vehicle off of his property. He
further alleges that on June 21, 2012, Saginaw District Judge
Randall Jurrens ruled against him in related litigation at
the behest of Attorney Floyd Kloc and township officials.
While asserting that he has complied with all relevant court
orders and removed the Winnebago from the property, Adams
claims that Attorney Kloc has continued to pursue enforcement
actions against him for allegedly violating township codes.
sought to address his grievances with township officials at a
March 4, 2014 township meeting. However, after violating
various policies and restrictions concerning public comments,
he was arrested by Police Chief David Duffett and Patrol
Sergeant John Roberts. Adams alleges that he was subsequently
placed in an overcrowded jail cell at the Saginaw County Jail
where he received insufficient accommodations and feared for
his life. As a result, Adams alleges that he has experienced
emotional distress and public humiliation. Adams further
alleges that Saginaw County Sheriff William Federspiel,
Attorney General William Schuette, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigations have refused to properly investigate his
was again arrested on March 22, 2015 by Sergeant Roberts
pursuant to arrest warrants obtained under “dubious
circumstances” for failure to comply with township
codes and initiatives. Adams alleges that he was denied his
blood pressure medication and prevented from making phone
calls for the three days he was subsequently detained. While
he was scheduled to be arraigned on March 24, 2015 before
Judge Kyle Higgs Tarrant, Adams alleges that the hearing was
abruptly terminated and that he was assaulted and injured by
the Saginaw County Sheriff's deputies who removed him
from the courtroom and returned him to solitary confinement.
Adams claims he was ultimately forced to pay $6, 000 to avoid
additional jail time. He claims that he subsequently sought
treatment at the Genesys Hospital on March 26, 2015 for
injuries sustained during his time in custody. He also claims
Bridgeport Township continues to prevent him from fully
enjoying his property.
first amended complaint, Adams asserts seven counts pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of these events: (1)
Violation of his First Amendment Right to exercise free
speech and petition for redress of grievances; (2) Violation
of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable
seizures, arrests, and prosecutions without probable cause;
(3) False arrest and false imprisonment; (4) Excessive force
in violation of the Fourth Amendment (5) Violation of his
Fifth Amendment right to be free from public takings without
just compensation; (6) Violation of his Eight Amendment
rights to be free from excessive fines and cruel and unusual
punishment; and (7) Violation of due process and equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adams also asserts
one count of assault and battery, one count of common law
malicious prosecution, and one count of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Finally, Adams asserts a
claim of municipal liability against Bridgeport Township and
Saginaw County pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision
in Monell v. Department of Social Services of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
May 25, 2017 report and recommendation, the magistrate judge
recommends that all of Adams' claims be dismissed, with
the exception of his Fourth Amendment excessive force claim
and his assault and battery claim. As a result, she
recommends the dismissal of all defendants except for Chief
of Police Duffett and Sergeant Roberts in their individual
and official capacities.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to
and seek review of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Objections must be
stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If objections are made,
“[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). De novo
review requires at least a review of the evidence before the
magistrate judge; the Court may not act solely on the basis
of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th
Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free
to accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of the magistrate judge. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221
F.Supp.2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
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). “The parties have the duty to
pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that
the district court must specially consider.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently
identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.
See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D.
Mich. 2004). An “objection” that does nothing
more than disagree with a magistrate judge's
determination, “without explaining the source of the
error, ” is not considered a valid objection.
Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
has not raised any specific objections to the magistrate
judge's report. Instead, he broadly objects to the
report's conclusions, generally asserts that the
magistrate judge has relied on “dubious” and
“recent” legal authority, and notes that he
intends to file a second amended complaint. Because
Adam's objections are not ...