Drane v. Catholic Charities West Michigan et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CYNTHIA D RANE , 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-1478
v. 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
CATHOLIC CHARITIES WEST M ICHIGAN , 	)
ET AL ., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Berens’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R), (ECF No. 29), in which she recommended that Defendants’
motion to dismiss be granted, (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff objected to the R&R. (ECF No. 31).
After reviewing the objections, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
The R&R will thus be adopted in full and Defendants’ motion will be granted.
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
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). Our
Case 1:25-cv-01478-PLM-SJB ECF No. 40, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 1
of 4

2
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).
II.
Plaintiff alleges that she faced discrimination and harassment after requesting religious
accommodations from Defendants. She raised theories under the First Amendment and
Title VII. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Berens determined that the complaint did not
contain sufficient facts to support a viable claim that there was state action on which to build
a First Amendment claim and did not contain sufficient facts to sustain a claim under Title
VII. The Magistrate Judge evaluated only the allegations in the complaint, as she was
required to do: a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) “invites an inquiry into the legal sufficiency of
Case 1:25-cv-01478-PLM-SJB ECF No. 40, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 2
of 4

3
the complaint” and, typically, nothing more.
Peatross v. City of Memphis, 818 F.3d 233, 240
(6th Cir. 2016).
Plaintiff’s objections go into matters beyond the face of the complaint; in fact, so far
beyond that the Court struck and removed various filings to protect the privacy interests of
third parties. (ECF No. 37). Plaintiff references a number of exhibits and sources for new
factual allegations. But in evaluating a motion to dismiss, courts “must focus only on the
allegations in the pleadings.”
Bates v. Green Farms Condo. Ass’n, 958 F.3d 470, 483 (6th
Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs may not “amend their complaint in an opposition brief or ask the court
to consider new allegations or evidence not contained in the complaint.”
Id. (citation
modified). Amending the complaint to add new allegations is accomplished through a
motion under Rule 15, not through briefing on a motion to dismiss.
Id. Additionally, even if
adding new allegations in responsive briefing were proper, adding them in an objection to a
magistrate judge’s R&R would not be. Parties cannot “raise at the district court stage new
arguments or issues that were not presented to the magistrate.”
Murr v. United States, 200
F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000);
Morgan v. Trierweiler, 67 F.4th 362, 367 (6th Cir. 2023)
(explaining that issues raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed
order are “deemed waived”);
Harvey v. Lillibridge, No. 1:21-cv-661, 2022 WL 2817666, at
*1 (W.D. Mich. July 19, 2022) (“[A] party cannot raise new arguments in an objection.”).
The Magistrate Judge here was not presented with any of the new evidence or allegations,
but if she had been, she would have been correct to not evaluate them and reach the
conclusions she did based on the face of the complaint.
Case 1:25-cv-01478-PLM-SJB ECF No. 40, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 3
of 4

4
III.
Plaintiff’s objections improperly attempted to add new evidence and allegations to
support her claims for relief in response to a motion to dismiss, and the legal standard
requires that the Court evaluate only the allegations properly presented in a pleading. The
Magistrate Judge correctly confined her analysis to Plaintiff’s complaint. The R&R (ECF No.
29) is thus ADOPTED IN FULL. Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	March 18, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01478-PLM-SJB ECF No. 40, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 4
of 4