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.

Heard v. Snyder

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

September 5, 2017

LAMONT HEARD, RICHARD BALDWIN, and JEROME SMITH, Plaintiffs,
v.
RICK SNYDER, HEIDI WASHINGTON, and MICHAEL EAGEN, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING, WITH MODIFICATIONS, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [47]

          NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued on July 17, 2017 (Dkt. 47), Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris recommends that the Court: (1) grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dkt. 36); and (2) deny Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. (Dkt. 46.) Plaintiffs have filed four objections to the R&R.[1] For the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs' objections and, with modifications, ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the R&R. As a result, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is GRANTED, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT, and this case is DISMISSED.

         I. Standard of Review

         When a party objects to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on a dispositive motion, the Court reviews such portions de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). However, only specific objections that pinpoint a source of error are entitled to de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). General objections, or those that merely challenge the magistrate judge's ultimate determinations, have "the same effects as would a failure to object." Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). That is, such objections are invalid, and the Court may treat them as if they were waived. See Harris v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2017 WL 343729, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2017). "After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge." Lyons v. Comm. of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 662 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

         II. Analysis

         A. The R&R's Citations to the Original Complaint

         Plaintiffs first object to the R&R's citing to the original Complaint, rather than the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 54, at 1.) Plaintiffs argue that such citations demonstrate "erroneous analysis" because the Amended Complaint clarifies their claims, pleads additional facts, and adds a new cause of action. (Id. at 2.) While Plaintiffs are correct that the R&R cites the original Complaint on several occasions, their first objection lacks merit for the following reasons.

         First, Plaintiffs have not pinpointed which "additional facts" or "clarifie[d] [] claims" the R&R overlooks, let alone how it might have produced "erroneous analysis." The only major difference between the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint lies in the added "This Action States a Claim" section, where Plaintiffs offer legal argument but plead no additional facts. (Dkt. 26 at ¶¶ 31-41.) The R&R recommends dismissing Plaintiffs' claims because Plaintiffs have not set forth facts establishing a deprivation of constitutional rights, and the Amended Complaint's legal arguments do not render the R&R's conclusion infirm.

         Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not shown that any of the R&R's citations reflect an erroneous understanding of Plaintiffs' allegations. Nor could they do so, for each allegation cited in the R&R also appears in the Amended Complaint. The R&R cites to paragraphs 3, 7, 13, 17-18, 21, 34, 37-38, 52-55, 63-65, 80, and 82, as well as Pg ID 1 and Pg ID 13, of the original Complaint. (See Dkt. 47, at 2-3; Dkt. 1.) The allegations therein respectively appear, in either identical or substantially similar forms, in paragraphs 3, 7, 13, 17-18, 21, 45/46, 49-50, 64-67, 75-77, 92, and 94, as well as Pg ID 98 and Pg ID 112-113, in the Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 26.)

         As to the Amended Complaint's supposed "new cause of action, " which Plaintiffs do pinpoint, it appeared in the original Complaint (though under a different heading). The original Complaint raised two constitutional claims, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection. (Dkt. 1.) The heading "First Cause of Action (Eighth Amendment Violation)" preceded the following allegations:

94. MCL 791.234(6) violates the Eighth Amendment disproportionate sanction jurisprudence, as applied to Plaintiffs. A LWOP sanction on a youth is a disproportionate sanction when compared to imposing the same sanction on an adult.
95. There is a mismatch between the culpabilities of Plaintiffs and the severity of the parole exclusion penalty.
96. Furthermore, the statute is unconstitutional because it fails to take into consideration Plaintiffs [sic] youth for purposes of a ...

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.