Brown v. Detroit, City of et al, No. 2:2012cv13402 - Document 55 (E.D. Mich. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING 50 Plaintiff's Objections; Adopting 46 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING 24 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; TERMINATING AS MOOT 49 Motion for Summary Disposition and 51 Motion for Leave to File filed by Henry Brown. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Download PDF
Brown v. Detroit, City of et al Doc. 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION HENRY BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-13402 CITY OF DETROIT and LATONYA BROOKS, Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (4) TERMINATING LATER-FILED MOTIONS AS MOOT This is a civil rights case stemming from the arrest of pro se Plaintiff Henry Brown, who was subsequently determined to be innocent and released after 270 days detention. (See Dkt. # 23.) Pending before the court is the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 46) of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, to whom the case had been referred to for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Defendants City of Detroit and Latonya Brooks have filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. # 46.) The magistrate judge recommends that this motion be granted, finding that no Fourteenth Amendment violation exists because the allegedly improper photographic lineup was never introduced at trial and Plaintiff’s remaining claims are barred by the existence of a valid warrant, the absence of necessary evidence, or are otherwise improper. (Id.) Plaintiff has filed what purport to be objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 50) and Defendants have filed a response. (Dkt. # 53.) The court will deem Plaintiff’s objections waived, adopt the report and recommendation, and grant the motion for summary judgment the reasons provided below. The filing of timely objections 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 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 this court to examine the relevant pleadings and such evidence as may have been submitted in support of the motions. A failure to file objections, or a failure to file specific objections, constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). In order for this court to apply meaningful de novo review, it is insufficient for the objecting party to simply incorporate by reference earlier pleadings or reproduce an earlier unsuccessful motion for dismissal or judgment (or response to the other party’s dispositive motion). Insufficient objections to a magistrate judge’s analysis will ordinarily be treated by the court as an unavailing general objection. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Overly general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement.”). Plaintiff’s filings raises six “objections,” all of which simply restate arguments that Plaintiff raised in the underlying briefing and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation addressed at length. Plaintiff neglects to even mention the magistrate judge’s analysis. The court finds Plaintiff’s purported objections to be improper and, as a result, Plaintiff has waived any objection to the report and recommendation. See 2 Spencer, 449 F.3d at 725. The court has reviewed the underlying briefing and finds the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to be well-reasoned, thorough, and correct. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. # 50) are OVERRULED. The report and recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety and incorporated by reference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 24) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Disposition” (Dkt. # 49) and “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint” (Dkt. # 51) are TERMINATED AS MOOT. s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE / Dated: June 9, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, June 9, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (810) 292-6522 S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\12-13402.BROWN.adopt.r& 3 /

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.