United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JAMES U. PAYNE, Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH LOWRY, OFFICER CLARK, and KELLIE M. FITTONNEVILLE, Defendants.
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
David
M. Lawson United States District Judge
This
matter is before the Court on objections to an August 15,
2019 report issued by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
recommending that the Court grant the defendants' motion
for summary judgment and dismiss the complaint with
prejudice. On April 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed his pro
se complaint alleging violations of his rights under the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was
referred to Magistrate Judge Whalen for management of all
pretrial proceedings. After a period of discovery, the
defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. The
magistrate judge subsequently issued his report recommending
dismissal of the case, and the plaintiff filed timely
objections. The matter now is before the Court for a fresh
review.
I.
The
lawsuit arises from events that followed an April 2016
traffic stop during which the plaintiff was arrested, and his
car and property were searched and seized. The plaintiff
contends that there was no basis for the traffic stop, but
his claims are premised solely on events that occurred after
the stop and arrest. First, he alleges that his First
Amendment rights were violated when he was not allowed to
speak freely during hearings before the state trial court.
Second, he contends that his Fourth Amendment rights were
violated when the police refused to return his driver
license, which was confiscated during or after the traffic
stop. Third, he alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights
were violated while he was in custody, when officers at the
jail prevented paramedics from taking the plaintiff to the
hospital after he had a seizure. Fourth, the plaintiff
alleges that his rights further were violated when, during a
probation violation hearing, defendant probation officer
Kellie Fittonneville falsely stated that the plaintiff went
to a restaurant instead of attending a court-ordered meeting
with her.
It is
undisputed that as a result of the traffic stop and arrest
the plaintiff was taken to the Hazel Park, Michigan jail, and
that he subsequently was charged with felony fleeing and
eluding. While in custody, on the morning after he was
arrested, the plaintiff complained to jail officers that he
had a seizure and paramedics were called. The plaintiff was
examined by them and, according to his testimony, the
paramedics recommended that he be taken to the hospital.
However, unnamed jail officers who were present spoke to the
paramedics, who then left, and the plaintiff then was
transported to the Oakland County Jail. The plaintiff later
was released from jail, and he eventually pleaded guilty to a
reduced charge of misdemeanor resisting and obstructing and
was sentenced to probation.
After
he was sentenced, the plaintiff failed to appear for a
scheduled meeting with his probation officer (defendant
Fittonneville), and he was sentenced to 17 days in jail for
the probation violation.
The
plaintiff alleges that when he was arrested the police seized
from his person and vehicle around two ounces of marijuana,
more than $600 in cash, his driver license, and a
state-issued medical marijuana caregiver identification card.
The police also impounded the vehicle and subsequently served
the plaintiff a notice that the car would be subject to
forfeiture. The plaintiff admits that the police later
returned his money and the marijuana caregiver card, but he
alleges that his driver license was not returned, and he had
to get a new one in June 2016. The plaintiff also alleges
that he could not retrieve his impounded vehicle because he
did not have his original driver license when he went to the
impound facility.
The
magistrate judge recommended that all of the claims be
dismissed because: (1) the complaint did not plead any facts
to suggest that Officer Clark was in any way personally
involved with any violations of the plaintiff's rights,
and the plaintiff conceded during his deposition and asserted
in various filings that he intended Clark to be involved in
the proceedings solely as a witness, (2) defendant
Fittonneville was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial
immunity from the claims of misconduct while performing her
court-directed duties as a probation officer, (3) the claim
that property was improperly retained after a valid seizure
(during an inventory search of the plaintiff's person and
vehicle) is not cognizable under the Fourth Amendment, and
(4) the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
was unsupported by the evidence because the record showed
that paramedics promptly were summoned when the plaintiff
complained to jail officers that he had a seizure, and the
medical notes indicated “normal” vital signs upon
examination; moreover, the magistrate judge noted, the
records contained a refusal of ambulance transport signed by
the plaintiff.
II.
The
filing of timely objections to a report and recommendation
requires the court to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United
States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). This
de novo review requires the court to re-examine all
of the relevant evidence previously reviewed by the
magistrate judge in order to determine whether the
recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or modified in
whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. ‘ 636(b)(1). “The
filing of objections provides the district court with the
opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the
parties and to correct any errors immediately, ”
Walters, 638 F.2d at 950, enabling the court
“to focus attention on those issues - factual and legal
- that are at the heart of the parties' dispute, ”
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). As a
result, “‘[o]nly those specific objections to the
magistrate's report made to the district court will be
preserved for appellate review; making some objections but
failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections
a party may have.'” McClanahan v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231,
829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)).
“Section
1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code imposes civil
liability on those individuals who, acting under color of
state law, deprive a citizen of, among other things, his
federally guaranteed constitutional rights.” Baynes
v. Cleland, 799 F.3d 600, 607 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 197-98 (2004)).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
set forth facts that, when favorably construed, establish:
(1) the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States; (2) caused by a person acting
under the color of state law.” Ibid. (citing
Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527, 533
(6th Cir. 2006)). The plaintiff must establish the liability
of each individual defendant by that person's own
conduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009)
(“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens
and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each
Government-official defendant, through the official's own
individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”).
A.
Defendant Officer Clark
As an
initial matter, the plaintiff does not raise any objection to
the dismissal of all claims against defendant Officer Clark.
The plaintiff conceded at his deposition and admits in his
objections that he did not intend to bring any claims against
Officer Clark and only wanted him to participate in the
lawsuit as a witness. The claims against defendant Clark will
be dismissed because the plaintiff has not alleged any ...