Cooper-Keel v. Baier et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NEVIN P. COOPER-KEEL,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v. 	Case No. 1:24-cv-1235
JEREMY BAIER, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Woodwyk’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. (ECF No. 15). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned
recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted and this action terminated.
BACKGROUND
Defendant initiated this action on November 19, 2024, against Defendants Baier
and Woodwyk, an Allegan County Assistant Prosecutor and Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Officer, respectively. (ECF No. 1).
In his verified complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following. (ECF No. 1). On
November 14, 2022, Defendant Woodwyk “responded to a complaint” from Plaintiff’s
cousin, Garrett Keel-Worrell, who claimed that Plaintiff was “harassing his hunting on
shared property.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.1). While speaking with Defendant Woodwyk,
Keel-Worrell admitted that he followed Plaintiff “to where [he] was at on shared
property” and that admitted that he helped the mother of Plaintiff’s minor daughter
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 1
of 7

-2-
“cheat on her hunter’s safety test” so that Keel-Worrell could “secretly . . . take
[Plaintiff’s] daughter hunting” when Plaintiff “would not allow [Keel-Worrell] . . . to do
so.” (Id.). Keel-Worrell also told Defendant Woodwyk that Plaintiff had “a bunch of
prior felonies,” “was on felony probation,” “and had a probation violation,” but that
Plaintiff was “paying someone to scrub his records.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.2). After
speaking with other witnesses, Defendant Woodwyk then “compiled his report on the
matter and requested prosecution” on November 17, 2022. (Id.).
On November 23, 2022, Defendant Baier “sign[ed] off on the misdemeanor
complaint for prosecution for the hunter’s harassment case.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.3).
After being charged with “hunter’s harassment,” Plaintiff states that he was not
provided discovery as required by the Michigan Court Rules. (Id.). Plaintiff further
alleges that Defendant Woodwyk “edited the audio file” of his interview with Keel-
Worrell, excluding “where [the] complaining witness admitted to having committed a
crime” and “whatever else was said prior to where the interview cuts in.” (Id.). The
Allegan County Prosecutor’s Office voluntarily dismissed the case on February 27, 2023.
(ECF No. 1, PageID.4). At a pretrial hearing on January 20, 2023, Defendant Baier
admitted that he signed off on the warrant request “but did not read the police report
and is not familiar with any of the allegations made against [Plaintiff] in the case.”
(Id.). Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims of malicious prosecution and
due process violations.
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 2
of 7

-3-
Defendant Baier moved to dismiss the claims against him, asserting prosecutorial
immunity. (ECF No. 9). The Court granted Defendant Baier’s motion, dismissing him
from the action. (ECF No. 23, 26). At this juncture, only Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Woodwyk remain. Defendant Woodwyk now seeks judgment on the
pleadings. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff has responded to the motion. (ECF No. 19).
Defendant Woodwyk filed a reply. (ECF No. 21). The Court finds that oral argument
is unnecessary. See W.D. MICH. LCIVR 7.2(d).
RULE 12(c) STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) After the pleadings are closed—but early
enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. The Court
reviews motions for judgment on the pleadings under the same standard as it reviews
motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell
Township, 103 F.4th 1186, 1191 (6th Cir. 2024). “[A]ll well-pleaded material allegations
of the pleadings . . . must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only if the
moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” Id. at 1191-92 (quoting
Warrior Sports, Inc. v. NCAA, 623 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2010)). Thus, “[a] motion
brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) is appropriately granted when no material issue of fact
exists and the party making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Brown v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't, 135 F.4th 1022, 1030 (6th Cir. 2025)
(alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). “The court may consider documents
attached to the pleadings, documents that are referred to in the pleadings and are
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 3
of 7

-4-
integral to the claims, and matters of public record without converting a motion for
judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (cleaned up).
ANALYSIS
I. 	Malicious Prosecution
To succeed on a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must
prove that: “(1) the defendant made, influenced, or participated in the decision to
[criminally] prosecute; (2) the government lacked probable cause; (3) the proceeding
caused the plaintiff to suffer a deprivation of liberty; and (4) the prosecution ended in
the plaintiff’s favor.” Lester v. Roberts, 986 F.3d 599, 606 (6th Cir. 2021) (quotation
omitted). “ ‘Providing reports, affidavits, or other investigative materials containing
falsehoods, omissions, or misstatements to a prosecutor can constitute participation
when (1) those materials formed the basis for the charge,’ and ‘(2) the falsehoods,
omissions, or misstatements were made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the
truth.’ ” Homrich v. City of Wyoming, 800 F. Supp. 3d 801, 822 (W.D. Mich. 2025). “It
is absolutely clear . . . that an officer will not be deemed to have commenced a criminal
proceeding against a person when the claim is predicated on the mere fact that the officer
turned over to the prosecution the officer’s truthful materials.” Sykes v. Anderson, 625
F.3d 294, 314 (6th Cir. 2010).
Here, although Plaintiff contends that Defendant Woodwyk destroyed and
withheld evidence (ECF No. 1, PageID.4), these factual allegations are unsupported
conclusions that the Court must discard in deciding Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion.
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 4
of 7

-5-
Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant Woodwyk acted “deliberately or
with reckless disregard for the truth.” See Homrich, 800 F. Supp. 3d at 822.
Accordingly, this claim fails.
II. 	Section 1983 Claim
Plaintiff asserts that he suffered Brady1 violations that infringed on his due-
process rights because Defendant Woodwyk “destroy[ed] evidence” and withheld it until
Plaintiff “had to make a motion for Brady violations.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.4).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Brady violations related to: (1) the failure to disclose 18
pieces of evidence referenced in a police report, and (2) the failure to disclose a full audio
recording of an interview with the complaining witness. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3).
“Under Brady v. Maryland, the government has a constitutional obligation to
furnish a criminal defendant with any exculpatory evidence related to the defendant's
guilt or possible punishment,” Robinson v. Mills, 592 F.3d 730, 735 (6th Cir. 2010),
including evidence that a defendant can use to impeach government witnesses. Bell v.
Bell, 512 F.3d 223, 232 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676–
677 (1985)). While Brady involved the actions of prosecutors, “police can commit a
constitutional deprivation analogous to that recognized in Brady by withholding or
suppressing exculpatory material.” Jackson v. City of Cleveland, 925 F.3d 793, 814 (6th
Cir. 2019). Brady claims have three elements: “[1] the evidence at issue must be
favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; [2]
1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 5
of 7

-6-
that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently;
and [3] prejudice must have ensued.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82, 119
S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999).
Plaintiff fails to establish any element of a Brady violation. He has not explained
how the evidence at issue was favorable to him, how the prosecution suppressed such
evidence, nor how he was prejudiced. Specifically, Plaintiff admits that the prosecution
provided the evidence, except for a purportedly unedited audio recording of Defendant
Woodwyk’s interview with the complaining witness, “where [the] complaining witness
admitted to having committed a crime.” This is wholly unrelated to Plaintiff’s hunter
harassment charge. Regardless, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how he was prejudiced
in light of the prosecution’s dismissal of the case. Accordingly, this claim fails.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the Court recommends that Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 15) be granted and this action terminated. The
undersigned further recommends that an appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would not be
in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 6
of 7

-7-
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 9, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 7
of 7