United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING, WITH
MODIFICATIONS, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. 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.
Standard of Review
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).
The R&R's Citations to the Original
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
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.
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.)
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
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
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 ...