Glass v. Department of Health and Human Services et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRIANA N ICOLE G LASS , 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:26-cv-954
v. 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH AND H UMAN 	)
SERVICES ,
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. 7), in which she recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint
be dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity and the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis in this case, objected to the R&R. (ECF No. 8). 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 Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed.
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
Case 1:26-cv-00954-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 1
of 4

2
recommendation.”
Fharmacy Recs. v. Nassar, 465 F. App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). Our
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).
In cases where the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, courts must dismiss the case
if they determine that the plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). To state a claim, “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 orders entered in her divorce case violated her constitutional
rights. She alleges that there was never any allegation or evidence that the relevant minor
child’s health, safety, or welfare was in jeopardy. She named the Michigan Department of
Health and Human Services and the Friend of the Court for Eaton County Circuit Court.
The Magistrate Judge found that Defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh
Case 1:26-cv-00954-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 2
of 4

3
Amendment, and that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
	Rooker-Feldman doctrine
preventing parties who lose in state court from effectively seeking an appeal in federal district
courts.
See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The
Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff, in her objections, first asks for permission to amend her filings to name
“defendants not in their immune capacity.” (ECF No. 8 at PageID.29). But amendments to
the complaint must be made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, not through
objections to an R&R. Addressing the objection substantively, while suing individual
defendants in their individual or official capacities may make a difference for the Eleventh
Amendment immunity analysis, there is no “capacity” in which a state agency loses that
immunity. The cover sheet Plaintiff attached with her objections continues to name Eaton
County Friend of the Court institutionally as the defendant rather than any individual. (ECF
No. 8-1 at PageID.35). It thus appears that amendment on these grounds would be futile,
and lead to the same conclusion that Defendants are immune under the Eleventh
Amendment.
The remainder of Plaintiff’s objections go to her theories of why the state court orders
violated her constitutional rights. In doing so, the Plaintiff illustrates, rather than refutes, the
Rooker-Feldman problem. The United States District Courts may not directly review state
court judgments—state appeals courts do that, and the United States Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to review state supreme court judgments should the case get that far. Plaintiff
makes no argument that her complaint does not fall within the category of complaints barred
by
Rooker-Feldman as articulated in
Exxon Mobil Corp. 544 U.S. at 284.
Case 1:26-cv-00954-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 3
of 4

4
III.
Defendants are immune under the Eleventh Amendment, and Plaintiff does not
make clear in her objections how she could get around this issue through amendment.
Plaintiff provides no argument about the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions regarding
Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, and the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s complaint goes directly to the
substance of a state court order which this Court lacks jurisdiction to review. The Magistrate
Judge properly recognized this on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, so the R&R (ECF No. 7)
is ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	April 17, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00954-PLM-SJB ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/17/26 Page 4
of 4