1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR R. TALBOT, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-12393 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

TIMOTHY P. CONNORS, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (ECF # 12) TO 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF # 11); (2) ADOPTING 

REPORTING AND RECOMMENDATION; AND 

(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

 In this action, Plaintiffs Arthur Talbot, Kelly Bezrutch, and Internet 

Applications and Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) assert a number of 

claims against Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Timothy P. Connors. Plaintiffs 

generally complain about a series of actions taken by Judge Connors while 

presiding over three civil actions in which they were parties. They assert that 

Judge Connors was biased; that he allowed attorneys who had contributed to his reelection campaign to represent the opposing parties in the civil actions; that he did 

not believe in the premise underlying Plaintiffs’ claims in one of the civil actions 

before him; that he deprived Plaintiffs of certain hearings to which they were 

entitled; and that he engaged in ex parte communications with opposing counsel. 

2:15-cv-12393-MFL-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 02/01/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 141
2 

 Judge Connors filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF # 7.) Plaintiffs opposed the 

motion. (ECF # 9.) Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford, to whom the Court 

referred all pre-trial matters (ECF #6), has issued a Report and Recommendation 

suggesting that the Court grant Judge Connors’ motion to dismiss (the “R & R”). 

(ECF #11.) Magistrate Judge Stafford concluded that all of Plaintiffs’ claims are 

barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. (Id.) Plaintiffs have filed timely 

objections to the R & R. (ECF # 12.) The Court has reviewed the objections, and 

for the reasons explained below, the Court overrules them. 

 In Plaintiffs’ first objection, they argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in 

suggesting that judicial immunity barred that portion of their claim that was based 

upon alleged ex parte communications between Judge Connors and opposing 

counsel. (Objection, ECF #12 at 2, Pg ID 136.) But as the Magistrate Judge 

accurately determined, a judge does not lose judicial immunity by engaging in ex 

parte communications with one of the attorneys or parties involved in a civil 

action. See, e.g., Alexander v. Rosen, 804 F.3d 1203, 1208 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding 

that judge was shielded by judicial immunity even though the judge “allegedly 

engaged in ex parte communications” with a party); Conklin v. Anthou, 495 Fed. 

Appx. 257, 263 (3rd Cir. 2012) (“Nor is judicial immunity lost as a result of 

improper favoritism or ex parte communications.”); Crudup v. Schulte, 12 Fed. 

2:15-cv-12393-MFL-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 02/01/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 142
3 

Appx. 682, 686, n.3 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding that judge had judicial immunity 

from claim that he engaged in ex parte communication with prosecutor); Schuster 

v. Oppelman, 962 F.Supp. 394 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that judge had judicial 

immunity from claim that he engaged in ex parte communications as part of 

process through which judgment was obtained). Plaintiffs have not shown that 

there is any basis for departing from the rule that a judge has judicial immunity 

from a claim that he allegedly engaged in ex parte communications. 

 Plaintiffs next object to the Magistrate Judge’s statement that the corporate 

defendant, Internet Applications and Solutions, Inc., improperly appeared in this 

action without representation by counsel. This objection does not entitle Plaintiffs 

to relief because the Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissing the corporate 

defendant’s claims due to its lack of legal counsel. Instead, she recommended 

dismissing the claims as barred by judicial immunity. In any event, the Magistrate 

Judge correctly observed that a corporate defendant should appear through counsel. 

 Plaintiffs finally object in a general fashion that the Magistrate Judge’s 

ultimate recommendation that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice. But 

Plaintiffs have not shown any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or 

conclusions. On the contrary, the R & R persuasively demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ 

claims are barred by judicial immunity. 

2:15-cv-12393-MFL-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 02/01/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 143
4 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ objections to the R & R are OVERRULED; 

2. The R & R is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court; and 

3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and all of the claims therein are DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 1, 2016 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on February 1, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-12393-MFL-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 02/01/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 144