United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a civil rights action brought by state prisoner, Ronald
Davis, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Phillip
Green issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R),
recommending that the Court deny Davis' motion (ECF No.
23), grant Defendants' motion (ECF No. 26), and decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davis'
purported state law claims. (ECF No. 32.) Davis filed an
Objection to theR&R (ECF No. 33.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party "may
serve and file specific written objections" to the R
& R, and the Court is to consider any proper objection.
Local Rule 72.3(b) likewise requires that written objections
"shall specifically identify the portions" of the R
& R to which a party objects. Under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), upon receiving objections to a report and
recommendation, the district judge "shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made." After conducting a de novo review of the R &
R, Davis' objections, and the pertinent portions of the
record, the Court concludes that the R & R should be
& R details the procedural history of this case and that
of a parallel case Davis filed shortly before this one. Davis
filed the earlier suit alleging the same claims and seeking
the same relief. On February 28, 2017, Judge Janet Neff
dismissed Davis' other suit on the merits. On October 16,
2017, the Sixth Circuit affirmed Judge Neff s decision. The R
& R now recommends dismissing Davis' federal claims
because they are barred by issue preclusion and claim
preclusion, and declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Davis' remaining state law claims.
Davis asserts four objections.
Davis objects that issue preclusion does not apply because
this case was filed before Judge Neff dismissed his parallel
case. Davis does not cite any case law to demonstrate that a
decision in a contemporaneous parallel case does not qualify
as an "earlier legal proceeding." See Anderson
v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 350 (6th Cir. 2015)
("Claim and issue preclusion generally prevent parties
from raising an argument that they already fully litigated in
an earlier legal proceeding.") Judge Neff s decision in
Davis' parallel case was rendered prior to
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in this case, and
the Sixth Circuit has since affirmed her decision. This is
not a bar to claim or issue preclusion. Davis' first
objection is without merit.
Davis argues that the magistrate judge incorrectly stated
that Davis failed to address preclusion in his brief. This is
not dispositive because Davis' arguments in his brief do
not cure the fact that this case is barred by claim and issue
preclusion. This objection is without merit.
Davis objects that he was denied the right to discovery.
Discovery would not cure the fact that this case is barred by
claim and issue preclusion. This objection is without merit.
Davis objects that collateral estoppel does not apply to
the individual defendants in this suit in their individual
capacities because they were not parties to the earlier
litigation. Although "strict claim preclusion does not
apply to [the individual defendants] in their
individual capacity, " Davis "has not
presented sufficient evidence that actions in their
non-official capacity by [one of the] part[ies]
would raise a colorable § 1983 claim." Dubuc v.
Green Oak Twp., 312 F.3d 736, 751 (6th Cir. 2002)
(emphasis in original). "The Court should not allow
[Davis] to continue this repetitive litigation simply by
finding some . . . official that has not yet been sued, and
trying to blame . . . that one person individually."
Pittman v. Michigan Corrs. Org., 123 Fed.Appx. 637,
641 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Dubuc, 312 F.3d at
did not object to the recommendation that the Court decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law
claims. Any objection is therefore deemed waived. The Court
will exercise its discretion and decline supplemental
jurisdiction over Davis' state law claims.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32) is
APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this
Court, and Plaintiffs Objection (ECF No. 33) is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is DENIED,
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is
GRANTED and Plaintiffs federal claims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs state law claims
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE This case is