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.

West v. Ann Arbor Housing Commission

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

January 16, 2018

DARRYL WEST, et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
ANN ARBOR HOUSING COMMISSION, et al, Defendants.

          BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 14)

          STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter on February 22, 2017. (Dkt. 1). Answers to the complaint were filed on March 27 and 28, 2017. (Dkt. 8, 9). On April 3, 2017, this matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. (Dkt. 10). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, as of right under Rule 15, on April 7, 2017. (Dkt. 11). Defendants, Ann Arbor Housing Commission, Weneshia Brand (incorrectly identified in the complaint as Wynisa Brand), Jennifer Hall, and Maria Spencer filed what their counsel docketed as an “answer to amended complaint and objections, ” which is an objection to the amended complaint and a “request” to strike to it on April 18, 2017. (Dkt. 19). On April 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to strike, motion for summary judgment, and motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 14).[1] The defendants identified above filed their joint response on April 18, 2017. (Dkt. 17).[2]

         For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and motion for preliminary injunction be DENIED.

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         According to the operative complaint (Dkt. 11), plaintiff brings this suit against the Ann Arbor Housing Commission and several of its employees asserting a claim of housing discrimination based on race, gender, and marital status. According to the amended complaint, defendants have discriminated against him and his two children “when handling the process of managing and maintaining their Section 8 housing vouchers on two occasions by improper termination.” (Id. at ¶ 1, Pg. ID 79). He further claims that defendants made false statements during the appeal hearing, and that defendants also did not allow him to appeal the denial of the housing voucher transfer. (Id.).

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

         Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is only two sentences long. Plaintiff asserts that summary judgment in his favor is justified because of the “lack of reasonable defenses” and the “frivolous unwarranted statements in the defendants' answer.” (Dkt. 14, p. 6). In response, defendants asserts that the motion for summary judgment is improperly sought and lacks the proper supporting evidence and proofs.

         Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56(b) “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995), the court stated the standard for deciding a motion for summary judgment:

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Once the moving party has met its burden of production, the non-moving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must present significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to support plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.

Id. at 478-79. Here, plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing an absence of evidence to support defendants' case. Indeed, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of production of any evidence supporting his claims in this motion. Thus, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be DENIED.

         B. Plaintiff's Motion for ...


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.