Kevin Bowman, Jr. v. Kent County, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denies Kevin Bowman, Jr.’s motion concerning Kent County Court Services and adopts the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations. The court dismisses the federal civil-rights claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice, finding Eleventh Amendment immunity, insufficiently specific allegations, and failure to establish municipal liability or lack of probable cause.

Holdings

1. Only specific objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation require de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3). Plaintiff's objections were insufficiently specific.
2. Plaintiff could not withdraw Kent County Court Services by seeking leave to amend without filing a proposed amended complaint as required by Western District of Michigan Local Civil Rule 5.7(f).
3. Kent County Court Services, as a branch of the court system, enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity from Plaintiff's claims; the Eleventh Amendment also provided a defense for Kent County and its employees on the due-process and Sixth Amendment claims as pleaded.
4. Plaintiff failed to state viable federal civil-rights claims because he did not allege specific facts showing how each defendant's conduct caused the alleged violations, did not plead a basis for municipal liability against Kent County, and did not allege facts establishing lack of probable cause for his Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's nonspecific objections required de novo review of the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations.
2. Whether Plaintiff could withdraw Kent County Court Services as a defendant through an amended complaint without filing a proposed amended complaint as required by the local rules.
3. Whether the federal civil-rights claims were adequately pleaded against the defendants.
4. Whether Kent County Court Services, Kent County, and its employees were immune or otherwise not subject to liability on the pleaded claims.
5. Whether the federal claims should be dismissed with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice.

Disposition

dismissed