English v. U.I.A. of Michigan

          David R. Grand Magistrate Judge

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          DAVID M. LAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Troy English filed a complaint against the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency for benefits he characterizes as “back pay.” He was allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees, and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge David Grand for pretrial management. Judge Grand filed a report on October 9, 2019 recommending that the complaint be dismissed because the defendant is a state agency that is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. English filed timely objections, and the case is now before the Court for fresh review.

         I.

         English used a preprinted form to file his complaint. When asked for the basis of federal jurisdiction, he checked the box that stated “Federal question, ” but he left blank the section asking him to list the citations to federal law or the Constitution on which he was relying. For the basis of his claim, he wrote:

I filed for a UIA claim, in June 2017 for being on medical in which I did not know you could file for that reason in which the UIA Agency told me that I cannot file or receive benefits for that reason, so I would like to sue the UIA, for benefits

         He asks for payment of $19, 844, which he says amounts to benefits from July 27, 2016 through July 27, 2017.

         With his complaint, English also filed an application to waive the prepayment of fees, alleging that he could not afford to pay them in advance. The Court granted the application to allow English to proceed as a pauper.

         When a plaintiff has asked the Court to waive fees and costs because he cannot afford to pay them, the Court has an obligation to screen the case for merit and dismiss the case if it “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Judge Grand screened the case, as he was required to do, and determined that English could not proceed because the only defendant he sued is immune from suit. He recommended that the case be dismissed.

         II.

         English objected to this recommendation. When objections are filed, the Court must “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), and 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).

         English's objections do not tell us much. This is what he wrote. First objection: “My name is Troy English, and I received paper No. 19-12933, and Magistrate Judge David R. Grand dismissed the case about the UIA agency paying me benefits from 7/27/16 through 7/27/17, in which I went on medical then finding out that my company II Enterprises fired me on 5/1/17, in which I did not know that you can apply for benefits, I was released from my doctor that I could go back to work, on 6/22/17, in which I had know job, so I would like to protest/appeal the judges decision, on this case.” (not cleaned up).

         Second objection: “My name is Troy English and I received papers on the No. 10-12933 [sic] to be dismissed by Judge David R. Grand, and I am object to and seek review of this order and report and recommendation.”

         These objections do not explain why English thinks Judge Grand was wrong when he recommended that the complaint be dismissed as ...