Ward, III v. Lansing, City of et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
J AMES V. WARD , III, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:24-cv-364
v. 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
CITY OF LANSING ,
ET AL ., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R), (ECF No. 80), in which he recommended that Defendants
Church, Siemon, and Nichol’s motions to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary
judgment, be granted, (ECF Nos. 63, 65), and that Plaintiff’s motions to dismiss without
prejudice be denied, (ECF Nos. 70, 73). Plaintiff objected to the R&R. (ECF No. 82). After
reviewing the objections, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The
R&R will thus be adopted in full, Defendants’ motions will be granted, and Plaintiff’s motions
will be denied.
I.
After being served with a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, a
party 	has 	fourteen 	days 	to 	file 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	proposed 	findings 	and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de
Case 1:24-cv-00364-PLM-PJG ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/31/26 Page 1
of 4

2
novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam). An “objection does not oblige the district court to ignore the report and
recommendation.”
Fharmacy Recs. v. Nassar, 465 F. App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). The
Court’s Local Rules require any party objecting to a report and recommendation to
“specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to
which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b);
see also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that “objections
disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the
findings . . . believed [to be] in error” are too general).
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true” to plausibly suggest that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
requested.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Facts “merely consistent with” the
defendant’s liability suggest only possibility, not plausibility, and thus fail this test.
Id. In
assessing whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter, courts need only accept
factual allegations as true and not legal conclusions or unwarranted inferences.
Kottmayer v.
Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 688 (6th Cir. 2006).
Courts grant summary judgment on an issue when there is “no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists if a reasonable factfinder could find in favor
of the nonmovant.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Courts make
Case 1:24-cv-00364-PLM-PJG ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/31/26 Page 2
of 4

3
all “reasonable inferences” in favor of the nonmovant when reviewing the record.
Malick v.
Croswell-Lexington Dist. Schs., 148 F.4th 855, 861 (6th Cir. 2025).
II.
Plaintiff filed the complaint in the present case asserting that several defendants
violated his rights in connection with his arrest and incarceration on state charges in 2021.
Defendant Nichol was Plaintiff’s public defender. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Church
and Siemon were involved because Nichol was appointed based on a contract involving them
and the City of Lansing. In the R&R, Judge Green recommended that Plaintiff’s malicious
prosecution claim against the remaining Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim,
and that summary judgment be granted to Defendants on Plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim.
Plaintiff does not identify any part of the R&R in his objections—at all. Nothing in his
objections could thus properly be the basis for rejecting Judge Green’s analysis. Plaintiff does
“ask the court to . . . allow plaintiff to go on with this case or allow to refile this case,” (ECF
No. 82 at PageID.734), but that broad objection to the outcome rather than to any particular
analysis or finding in the R&R is not specific enough.
See Miller, 50 F.3d at 380.
Plaintiff uses the remainder of his objections to make vague proclamations about the
purpose of government, the powers of corporations, and the principles in the Magna Carta.
(
See ECF No. 82 at PageID.735-36). To the extent these constitute legal arguments, Plaintiff
does not explain their relevance to anything in this case or the R&R. Plaintiff thus identifies
no error in the R&R, and it will be adopted in full.
Case 1:24-cv-00364-PLM-PJG ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/31/26 Page 3
of 4

4
III.
Plaintiff fails to identify any error in the R&R. Plaintiff’s arguments in his objections
are not related to Judge Green’s analysis in any meaningful way. The R&R (ECF No. 80) is
thus ADOPTED IN FULL. Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 63, 65) are GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 70, 73) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	March 31, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00364-PLM-PJG ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/31/26 Page 4
of 4