Thomas v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COURTNEY THOMAS , 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-1875
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
G RAPHIC P ACKAGING INTERNATIONAL , LLC, 	)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER
Plaintiff Courtney Thomas, acting without the assistance of counsel, alleges several
causes of action against Defendant Graphic Packaging International. Plaintiff sought and was
granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint
and issued a report recommending the court dismiss the lawsuit (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed
an objection (ECF No. 10), and amended complaint (ECF No. 11), and a notice of appeal
to the district judge (ECF No. 12). 	The court will deny the appeal and will adopt the
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and dismiss this lawsuit.
A. Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) and Objections (ECF No. 10)
In his initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged claims under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 	The Magistrate Judge
identified several reasons for the court to dismiss the claims. First, for citizen suits under the
CAA and RCRA, a plaintiff must first give notice to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Magistrate Judge cited several Sixth Circuit opinions for the legal proposition that the
lack of notice deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction. Second, the citizen suit statutory
Case 1:25-cv-01875-PLM-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 1
of 4

2
provisions permit prospective relief only, not damages. 	Third, the Magistrate Judge
concludes that Plaintiff cannot rely on § 1983 because the complaint failed to allege facts to
show that GPI was a state actor.
Plaintiff filed objections. 	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 de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th
Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
1. Plaintiff argues that the court has subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint
alleges claims under federal statutes and under § 1983. 	Plaintiff reasons that the R&R
conflates jurisdiction with the merits.
The court overrules Plaintiff’s objection. This court must follow the authority cited
the Magistrate Judge; the Sixth Circuit has held that the failure to follow the notice
requirements in the CAA and the RCRA constitutes a subject-matter deficiency. The court
lacks jurisdiction over the CAA and RCRA claims.
2. 	Plaintiff does not object to the portion of the R&R concluding that plaintiffs
bringing citizen suits under the CAA and the RCRA are limited to prospective relief and
cannot sue for damages.
3. Plaintiff does not object to portion of the R&R concluding that the complaint failed
to allege facts to show Defendant was a state actor.
Case 1:25-cv-01875-PLM-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 2
of 4

3
B. Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11).
A plaintiff may amend a complaint no later than 15 days after serving it. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(1)(A). 	The court rule applies even in this situation, where a Magistrate Judge has
issued a report and recommendation following a review of the complaint under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.
LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013).
The amended complaint suffers the same factual deficiencies as the initial complaint.
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s amended complaint. Plaintiff pleads the same causes of
action. 	He adds, in paragraph 7, allegations that GPI acted in joint participation with the
state of Michigan and its agencies. 	This perfunctory assertion fails to provide sufficient
factual details for the court to conclude that GPI functioned as a state actor for the purpose
of § 1983. And, the Supreme Court has clarified that private enterprises providing services
that the State would not necessarily provide, “
even though they are extensively regulated, do
not” constitute state actors.
American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 57 (1999)
(emphasis added). 	The amended complaint does not add factual allegations to overcome
the notice problem for the CAA and RCRA. 	The amended complaint continues to seek
damages, which are not permitted by citizen suits. Accordingly, the amended complaint does
not address the deficiencies identified in the R&R.
C. Appeal (ECF No. 12)
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the role of magistrate
judges. For dispositive matters, a magistrate judge must issue a report and recommendation,
to which a party can file objections.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). For nondispositive matters,
Case 1:25-cv-01875-PLM-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 3
of 4

4
a magistrate judge can issue an order, to which a party can file an appeal with the district
judge within 14 days.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Plaintiff filed an appeal of the report and recommendation. The court will deny the
appeal. The rules do not permit an appeal; the rules permit a party to file objection, which
Plaintiff did.
For these reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal (ECF No. 12), ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) and DISMISSES this lawsuit. 	IT IS SO
ORDERED.
Date: 	February 24, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01875-PLM-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/24/26 Page 4
of 4