United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#50] TO
GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#33] AND
TO DENY AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE SEALED MOTION FOR
ORDER PERMITTING JOHN DOE DEPOSITION [#38]
Page Hood, U.S. District Court Chief Judge
matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation
(Doc # 50) filed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub on
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 33), and
Defendants' Ex Parte Sealed Motion for Order
Permitting Them to Take John Doe Deposition (Doc # 38). To
date, no objections were filed to the Report and
Recommendation and the time to file such has passed.
standard of review by the district court when examining a
Report and Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right to
appeal the magistrate judge's recommendation, a party
must file objections to the Report and Recommendation within
fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file
specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right
of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985);
Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds that her findings and
conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that the Taylor Police Department is not a proper
defendant in this matter and should be dismissed. The Court
agrees that 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 do
not provide Plaintiff with a private cause of action. The
Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff's malicious prosecution Section 1983 claim
fails because Plaintiff has failed to set forth any factual
allegations or evidence to show that there was a lack of
probable cause for the prosecution. The Court agrees that any
equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment also
fails because the alleged statements on the part of Defendant
Jason Hall, standing alone, do not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. The Court also agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that any claim based on Defendants'
testimony at the preliminary exam related to the criminal
charges and/or at Plaintiff's murder trial fails because
Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from suit on
this basis. The Court agrees that Plaintiff's
Monell claim against Defendant City of Taylor fails
because Plaintiff cannot establish that he suffered a
constitutional violation at the hands of the individual
Defendants. The Court agrees that Plaintiff's conspiracy
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) fails because his equal
protection claim under Section 1983 cannot survive summary
judgment. Lastly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's state law claims is appropriate here because
the Court will dismiss all of Plaintiff's federal claims
for the reasons set forth above.
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub's
Report and Recommendation (Doc # 50) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc # 33) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Defendants' Ex
Parte Sealed Motion for Order Permitting Them to Take
John Doe Deposition (Doc # 38) is DENIED AS MOOT.
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
 Plaintiff's own admissions during
a videotaped police interview following his arrest for armed
robbery, as well as Plaintiff's written statement to the
police and deposition testimony, show that Plaintiff cannot
establish that there was a lack of probable cause.
See Doc # 33-5; Doc # 33-7 (stating “I fled
the sencen [sic] simply because I had prior warnts [sic] from
a few years back and because I knew there were guns in the
car. However I also knew I had touched a few guns so I felt
as if it would had look [sic] like one of them was mines
[sic]”); Doc # 33-10, Pg ID 310-11.
 Even if Defendant Hall's alleged
remark that Plaintiff is “just another young black boy
from Inkster waiting on a bullet” is a racial epithet,
the isolated use of a racial epithet, while reprehensible,
does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation
unless accompanied by other misconduct on the part of the
officer. See Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 706
(5th Cir. 1999); Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 219
n.3 (4th Cir. 1999); Brims v. Barlow, 441 F.
App'x 674, 678 (11th Cir. 2011); Patton v.
Przybylski, 822 F .2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 1987);
Guzinski v. Hasselbach, 920 F.Supp. 762, 764 n.1
(E.D. Mich. 1996); Davis v. ...