UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAVERE BRYANT and

ASTRIN CHANDLER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-14181

Honorable Denise Page Hood

v. 

SALLY JENKINS, DANEALE JOYCE

HAGAMAN-CLARK, LEAH BRONSON,

and FLAG STAR BANK,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

and

DISMISSING ACTION

I. BACKGROUIND/STANDARD OF REVIEW

This matter is before the Court on two Reports and Recommendations (Doc.

Nos. 18 and 19) filed by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand recommending summary

dismissal of the instant action filed by Plaintiffs Lavere Bryant and Astrin Chandler.

Objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. Nos. 20, 23, 24)

The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and

Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 636. This Court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). The

2:14-cv-14181-DPH-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 11/04/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 183
Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the Magistrate.” Id. In order to preserve the right to

appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the

Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and

Recommendation. 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 Health and Human Servs., 932 F2d 505 (6th Cir.

1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

II. THIS COURT’S REVIEW OF THE R&Rs

A. Plaintiff’s Chandler’s Complaint

After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as to

Plaintiff Chandler’s Complaint, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Plaintiff Bryant cannot pursue Plaintiff Chandler’s claims on her behalf pursuant to

the federal law prohibiting pro se individuals from representing other litigants. 

(R&R, No. 19, Pg ID 84) As noted by the Magistrate Judge the original Complaint

only bears Plaintiff Bryant’s signature. However, after the R&Rs and Objections

thereto were filed, Plaintiffsfiled a Motion to Amend the Complaint claiming that the

proposed Amended Complaint now bears Plaintiff Chandler’s signature and makes

clear that Plaintiff Chandler is pursuing her own claims, not Plaintiff Bryant on

2

2:14-cv-14181-DPH-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 11/04/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 184
Plaintiff Chandler’s behalf.

This Court’s review of the proposed Amended Complaint shows Plaintiff

Chandler’s purported signature, but it is noted that all the documents are mailed from

Plaintiff Bryant’s current place of imprisonment. The factual allegations and claims

in the proposed Amended Complaint are the same as in the original Complaint. 

Inasmuch as the proposed Amended Complaint purports to correct the lack of

Plaintiff Chandler’ssignature on the Complaint and to make clear thatshe is bringing

the lawsuit on her own behalf, the Court allowsthe amended complaint and the Court

considers such in reviewing the R&Rs. Because the Court is now considering the

Amended Complaint with Plaintiff Chandler’s purported signature, the Court will

consider the Magistrate Judge’s alternative recommendation that the claims by

Plaintiff Chandler be dismissed.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Chandler alleges

claims against Assistant ProsecutorDanielle Hagaman-Clark and Police Officer Leah

Bronson. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff

Chandler’s claim against Defendant Hagaman-Clark is barred by prosecutorial

immunity. As to Plaintiff Chandler’s claim against Defendant Bronson, the Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this claim fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The Court

3

2:14-cv-14181-DPH-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 11/04/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 185
further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Chandler’s allegations against

DefendantBronson are conclusions with no factual basis. Plaintiff Chandler’s claims

alleged in the Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

B. Plaintiff Bryant’s Complaint

After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation at to

Plaintiff Bryant’s Complaint, the Court finds that his findings and conclusions are

also correct. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Bryant has

previously filed at least three prisoner civil rights lawsuits which were dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As concluded by the

Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff Bryant falls within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)’s

three strike provision. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

contrary to Plaintiff Bryant’s argument that the three strike provision does not apply

to him as a pretrial detainee, the Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to detainees

awaiting trial and are considered prisoners for purposes of the PLRA. By his own

admission set forth in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Bryant has filed previous

lawsuits as a prisoner. The three strike provision under the PLRA governs Plaintiff

Bryant’s Amended Complaint. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that

Plaintiff does not meet the statute’s “imminent danger” exception. Plaintiff Bryant’s

in forma pauperisstatusisrevoked and the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

4

2:14-cv-14181-DPH-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 11/04/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 186
III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s (No. 18) is

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s(No. 19)

is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Objections (Nos. 20, 23, 24) are

OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint

(No. 26) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint

(No. 12) is MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Summons(No.

13) is MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Petition for Confidentiality (No. 17)

as to Plaintiffs’ address is DENIED since a party’s contact information is required

under the rules (E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(a)(1) and LR 11.2) and are public information to

be recorded by the Clerk. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 5, 5.2, 79.

5

2:14-cv-14181-DPH-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 11/04/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 187
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate

Consideration (No. 16) is MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order Granting Application to Proceed

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs as to Plaintiff Bryant is RESCINDED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice as

to Plaintiff Chandler and without prejudice as to Plaintiff Bryant. Plaintiff Bryant

may refile his lawsuit only upon payment of the appropriate filing fees.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: November 4, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on November 4, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

6

2:14-cv-14181-DPH-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 11/04/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 188