Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Diamond v. City of Kalamazoo

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 5, 2017

RYAN DIAMOND, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF KALAMAZOO, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JANET T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiffs Ryan Diamond, Kathy Lang, Branden Diamond, Brieanca Diamond, and Craig Lang initiated this matter against the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan, and eleven members of its Department of Public Safety ("Defendants") after police officers responded to their complaint of an assault by a neighbor and Craig Lang, Brieanca Diamond, Ryan Diamond, and Branden Diamond were all arrested.[1] Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part; specifically, that save for the false arrest and false imprisonment claims asserted by Plaintiffs Ryan Diamond and Branden Diamond against Defendant Elzinga, Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted or Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed as determined in the Report and Recommendation.

         The matter is presently before the Court on objections to the Report and Recommendation by Plaintiffs Ryan Diamond, Branden Diamond, and Craig Lang (ECF No. 95), to which Defendants have filed a Response (ECF No. 96). 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 set forth five objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds the objections without merit.

         Objection 1

         Plaintiffs object that the Report and Recommendation failed to adhere to the standard of review for summary judgment motions set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which requires that the court consider all pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and admissions on file, and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. Plaintiffs argue that the Report and Recommendation improperly focused solely on the Complaint and disregarded the plethora of depositions, medical records, police reports, and other evidence presented by the parties in their respective Motions and Responses.

         However, Plaintiffs' reliance on the Rule 56 standards is misplaced. The shortcomings in Plaintiffs' claims result from a failure to plead those claims, which was the basis of the Magistrate Judge's ruling that the claims failed. As Defendants point out, Plaintiffs' failure to allege facts personally implicating Defendants Schipper, Denharder, Geik, and Dahlinger in any constitutional violations is fatal to claims alleged under § 1983. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against these defendants was not in error and is not contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Magistrate Judge properly applied the governing legal standards. To the extent Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's discussion of Defendant Resseguie, who was previously dismissed, the Magistrate Judge committed no error since the discussion of the underlying circumstances pertains to the disposition of the remaining claims and Defendants. Objection 1 is denied.

         Objection 2

         Plaintiffs object that the Report and Recommendation erroneously found that Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Craig. Plaintiffs further object that, as a result, the Report and Recommendation erroneously found Defendants entitled to summary judgment of Craig's illegal search and seizure claim.

         Plaintiffs argue that given the facts they presented in their response to the motion for summary judgment and in their instant Objections, Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest Craig. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants should have looked beyond the evidence of Craig's guilt presented by witnesses Robeson, Williams and Pritchett, who were interested parties, to the totality of the circumstances. Plaintiffs state that "[i]t is clear that Defendants did not have enough information from the circumstances on which to base a suspicion sufficient to rise to the level of probable cause. Instead, Defendants used their own bias, along with the biased statements of interested parties, to manufacture probable cause" (ECF No. 95 at PageID.986-987). Additionally, "[d]ue to Defendants' failure to properly investigate the matter and their obvious retaliatory behavior, it cannot be conclusively established that Defendants truly had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Craig" (id. at PageID.988).

         Plaintiffs' argument is without merit. The Magistrate Judge properly considered the applicable Michigan law based on the record evidence and determined that there was a sufficient basis, i.e., probable cause, to arrest Craig for assault and battery (ECF No. 92 at PageID.963). The Magistrate Judge noted that Craig's reliance on claims and/or evidence of self-defense did not alter the probable cause analysis (id.). Plaintiffs have failed to show any error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis or conclusion. This objection is denied.

         Objection 3

         Plaintiffs object that the Report and Recommendation erroneously found that Plaintiffs Ryan Diamond and Branden Diamond make no factual allegations against any defendants other than Defendant Elzinga.

         This objection fails for the reasons stated in Objection 1. As the Magistrate Judge noted and Defendants point out in their response, Plaintiffs Ryan and Brandon Diamond alleged only that Defendant Elzinga was personally responsible for their illegal search and seizure and false arrest/imprisonment; they made no allegations against any other Defendant. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge properly determined ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.