United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt.
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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). The defendants identified
above filed their joint response on April 18, 2017. (Dkt.
reasons set forth below, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and motion for preliminary injunction be
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.).
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
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.
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
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
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.
Plaintiff's Motion for ...