UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PAUL DONIVER, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-10603 

 Honorable Robert H. Cleland 

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 

DETROIT POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO SUA SPONTE DISMISS THIS ACTION 

 On February 13, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Paul Doniver filed this prisoner 

civil rights action against the Detroit Police Department and unnamed 

Detroit police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [1]. Doniver claims 

that on January 1, 2009, Defendants used excessive force to restrain him 

following a high-speed chase. He alleges that the officers “viciously 

attacked, kicked and stomped” him and the Detroit Police Department 

Internal Affairs Department did nothing despite his complaints. [1, Pg ID 3]. 

The Honorable Robert H. Cleland referred this action to the undersigned to 

resolve all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, [3], which means that the 

Court has an affirmative duty to screen the complaint and dismiss any 

2:15-cv-10603-RHC-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 22
2

action that is frivolous or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

“When a meritorious affirmative defense based upon the applicable statute 

of limitations is obvious from the face of the complaint, sua sponte 

dismissal of the complaint as frivolous is appropriate.” Castillo v. Grogan, 

52 Fed. Appx. 750, 751 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53-

54 (2d Cir. 1995)). 

 The applicable statute of limitations for a Section 1983 civil rights 

action is “the state statute of limitations governing actions for personal 

injury.” McCune v. City of Grand Rapids, 842 F.2d 903, 905 (6th Cir. 

1988). The Sixth Circuit has held that Michigan’s three-year limitations 

period for personal injury claims is the appropriate statute of limitations for 

§ 1983 actions that arise in Michigan. Drake v. City of Detroit, Michigan, 

266 Fed. Appx. 444, 448 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws. § 

600.5805(10)). 

 Doniver filed this action over six years after the incident supporting 

his action occurred. It is clear from the face of the complaint that the threeyear statute of limitations has run and Doniver’s claims are time-barred. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be sua sponte 

DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Castillo, 52 Fed. 

Appx. at 751. 

2:15-cv-10603-RHC-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 23
3

 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Dated: March 12, 2015 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

 Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

2:15-cv-10603-RHC-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 24
4

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 12, 2015. 

 s/Marlena Williams 

 MARLENA WILLIAMS 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-10603-RHC-EAS Doc # 8 Filed 03/12/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 25