Bowman v. Kent, County of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
K EVIN BOWMAN, J R., 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-1807
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
K ENT COUNTY ,
et al., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER
Plaintiff Kevin Bowman, Jr., acting without the assistance of counsel, alleges the
defendants violated his civil rights. Plaintiff requested and the Magistrate Judge granted leave
to proceed
in forma pauperis. 	The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint and issued a
report recommending the court dismiss the federal causes of action for failure to state a claim
(ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a defendant and the Magistrate
Judge issued a supplemental report with the same recommendation (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff
then filed a motion to dismiss the new defendant (ECF No. 12) and objections (ECF No.
14). The court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, will adopt the R&Rs and will close this
lawsuit.
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) 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
Case 1:25-cv-01807-PLM-SJB ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 1
of 3

2
de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
A. Motion to Dismiss New Defendant (ECF No. 12)
In the supplemental R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the new
defendant, Kent County Court Services (KCCS). 	As a branch of the court system, KCCS
enjoys immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff moves to withdraw KCCS as a
defendant and proposes allowing him to file an amended complaint.
The court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw KCCS as a defendant by way of
amended complaint. 	Plaintiff relies on Rule 15(a)(2), which allows a plaintiff to file an
amended complaint with leave of the court. 	But the Local Rules require Plaintiff to file a
proposed amended complaint when seeking leave to amend the complaint. 	W.D. Mich.
LCivR 5.7(f). 	Plaintiff did not file a proposed amended complaint. 	The court notes that
Rule 41(a) permits a party to dismiss and action but does not permit a plaintiff to dismiss
individual defendants or claims.
B. Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 7 and 9)
In the initial R&R (ECF No. 7), the Magistrate Judge recommend dismissing
Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice. 	Generally, Plaintiff failed to allege what each
defendant did with particularity. For his due process claim and Sixth Amendment claim, the
Eleventh Amendment provides a defense for Kent County and its employees. Plaintiff failed
to allege facts to support a municipal liability claim against Kent County. Plaintiff failed to
demonstrate a lack of probable cause for his Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution
claim. Plaintiff did not file any specific objections to the initial R&R.
Case 1:25-cv-01807-PLM-SJB ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 2
of 3

3
In the supplemental R&R (ECF No. 9), the Magistrate Judge concludes the Eleventh
Amendment precludes Plaintiff’s claim against KCCS.
Plaintiff filed objections to the supplemental R&R (ECF No. 13). 	The court has
carefully reviewed the objections. 	Plaintiff’s arguments and reasoning fail to specifically
address the findings, conclusions and recommendations in the two R&Rs. 	KCCS enjoys
Eleventh Amendment immunity. 	Plaintiff did not allege specific facts to show how each
defendant’s conduct gave rise to the causes of action. The allegations do not establish a basis
for holding Kent County liable under
Monell.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Kent County Court
Services (ECF No. 12). The court ADOPTS the reports and recommendations (ECF Nos.
7 and 9) and dismisses the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without
prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	February 24, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01807-PLM-SJB ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 3
of 3