From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyers v. Neidermeier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 7, 2012
Case No. 10-11419 (E.D. Mich. May. 7, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 10-11419

05-07-2012

ARTHUR MEYERS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WARREN OFFICER NEIDERMEIER, CITY OF WARREN OFFICER KULHANEK, CITY OF WARREN OFFICER GILCHRIST and CITY OF WARREN POLICE COMMISSIONER, Defendants.


HON. AVERN COHN


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 102)


I.

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff's claims arose out an incident with plaintiff and two Warren police officers which resulted in plaintiff being charged with possession of cocaine. The charges were later dismissed after a state court granted a motion to suppress the cocaine on the grounds that the stop was unlawful.

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 55). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that the motion be granted. Neither party filed timely objections to the MJRR. Accordingly, the Court adopted the MJRR, granted defendants' motion, and dismissed the case. (Doc. 100).

Plaintiff's objections were due by April 16, 2012. Plaintiff did not sign and date his objections until May 1, 2012, the day before the Court issued its order adopting the MJRR. However, given plaintiff's pro se status, plaintiff's objections will be considered on the merits.

Now before the Court are plaintiff's objections to the MJRR (Doc. 102). For the reasons that follow, the objections are DENIED.

II.

Nothing in plaintiff's objections convinces the Court that its decision was in error. As explained in the MJRR, plaintiff's claims against Neidermeier, Gilchrist and the Warren Police Commissioner were dismissed because plaintiff failed to show they were personally involved in the incident. Regarding Kulhanek, the magistrate judge explained in detail that based on the record as it now stands, Kulhanek had a reasonable basis, under clearly established law, to conclude that he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for possession of drugs. Accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Arthur Meyers, 182660, 7592 Toepfer, Warren, MI 48091 and the attorneys of record on this date, May 7, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Julie Owens

Case Manager


Summaries of

Meyers v. Neidermeier

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 7, 2012
Case No. 10-11419 (E.D. Mich. May. 7, 2012)
Case details for

Meyers v. Neidermeier

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR MEYERS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WARREN OFFICER NEIDERMEIER, CITY OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: May 7, 2012

Citations

Case No. 10-11419 (E.D. Mich. May. 7, 2012)