NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 13 a01 23n. 06 No. 11 -236 5 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

VINCENT MENSAH, Plaint if f -Appe llee,

v

. M I C H I G A N D E P A R T M E N T O F CORRECTIO NS; PAT RIC IA L. CARUSO, in her individual and of f icial capa c it y as D i r e c t o r , M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f C or r ec ti on s ; H U GH W OL F EN BA R GER, i n his individual and of

f icial capa city as Macom b Correctiona l Fa cility W arde n; RANDALL HAAS, in his individua l a nd o f f icial capa city as Macom b Correctiona l Facility Depu ty W arde n, Def end ant s-Appe llants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNIT ED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE EAS T ERN DIST RICT OF MICHIGAN

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, KET HLEDGE, an d DONAL D, Circuit Jud ges.

PER CURIA M. Af

ter re s ig ning f rom his adm inistrative positio n at the Macom b Correctiona l Facility , plaintif f Vincent Mensah filed this emp loyment discr imina tion action against the Michig an Depa rtme nt of Corrections (MDOC) , MDOC Director Pat ricia Caruso, Macom b W arde n Hugh W olf enb arger, and Depu ty W ar de n R an da l l H aas. Mensa h alleged

v iolation s of T itle VII of the Civ il Rig hts Act of 196 4, 42 U.S.C. § § 19 8 1 a n d 1 9 8 3, the Michig an Elliot-Larse n Civ il Rig hts Act, and Sect ion 17 of the Michig an Constitu tion. T he individual de f end ant s f iled m otion s to dism iss on v arious base s, including f ailure to sta teNo. 1 1-23 65

Mensa h v. Michigan Depa rtm ent of Corrections, et al. a claim an d qualif ied im mu nity. T he district court gr ant ed the mo tions in part but de nied dism issa l u n der Fede ral Rule of Civ il Proced ure 12(b ) and on the gr oun d of qualif ied imm unity. T his interlocu tory app eal f ollowed, in w hich def end ant s W olf enb arger and Haas cla im t h a t the district court “erred by den y ing [the ir] mo tion to dism iss Mensa h’s § 198 3 claim” and tha t “Mensah has not plea ded an equal prote ct io n claim tha t def eat s [the def end ant s’] qualif ied imm unity.” W e conclu de, f or the reaso ns set out belo w , t hat the
app eal m ust b e d ismissed

. As to the § 198 1 claims, it is now clear that the distri ct court l acked subject mat ter jurisdiction to decid e the m. T he Sup reme Court held in Jett v. Dallas Ind epe nde nt Scho ol District , 491 U.S. 701 , 735 (198 9), tha t Congress inten ded § 198 3 to provide the exclusiv e

reme dy f or the v iolation of rig hts guarant eed by § 198 1 w hen the alleged v iolato r is a local
gov ernm ent

. In McCorm ick v

. Miam i University , 693 F.3d 654 , 661 (6th Cir. 201 2), the S ixt h Ci rcuit recen tly interp reted Jett to app ly to suits against state acto rs sued in the ir individual capa city

. T hus, § 198 1 cann ot af f ord Mensa h a me ans o f re li e f against the def end ant s in this action

. But , it is equally clear tha t w e have no jurisdiction to rev iew this claim on interlocu tory app eal, unle ss certif ied by the district court pursu ant to 28 U.S.C. § 129 2(b). T here ap pea rs to b e n o su ch ce rtif ication in th e reco rd.

W e also decline to rev iew the question of qualif ied imm unity, oth erw ise app eala ble und er the “collateral orde r” d octrine

. See Mitchell v. Forsyth , 4 7 2 U. S. 511 , 528 (198 5). Af ter the def end ant s moved to dism iss the plaintif f ’s § 1983 cl aim s, the magistrate judge

- 2 -No. 1 1-23 65

Mensa h v. Michigan Depa rtm ent of Corrections, et al.

ana ly z ed the me rits of tho se claims und er the Fourte ent h Am end me nt’s guarant ees of equal prote ction and proce dura l and sub stan tiv e d ue proce ss. T he judge f oun d tha t the due proce ss claims w ere not sup porte d b y the record and sho uld b e d ismissed . B ut t he judge also f oun d tha t the plaint if f ’s equal prote ction claims against W olf enb arger and Haas

we re n ot subje ct to dism issal and , f urthe r, recom me nde d to the district court tha t “[ t h e def end ant s’] request f or qualif ied im mu nity . . . b e d enie d.”

T he def end ant s w ere allow ed 14 days in which to f ile ob jection s to the m agistrate ju d ge ’s repo rt and recom me nda tion, w ith an adm onitio n tha t “[f ]ailure to f ile speci f ic obje ctions const itute s a w aiver of any f urthe r rig ht of app eal,” citing Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 142 (198 5), and How ard v. Secret ary of Health and Hum an Services , 932 F.2d 505 , 506 (6th Cir. 199 1). T he def end ant s t h e re a f t e r f iled time ly obje ctions, but the ir obje ction to the recom me nda tion regarding the § 198 3 claims w as not only oblique but also

ma de no ref eren ce a t all to qualif ied im mu nity. In its ent irety , th e o bjectio n rea ds:

T he v ague and am biguous ac c u sation s in Plaint if f ’s Com plaint do not supp ort a f in d ing, at any stage, tha t Def end ant s knowingl y v iolate d his f ede ral rig ht to equal prote ction und er the law

. Plaint if f has not prese nte d or alleged the existence of any direct evidence of discrimina tion or put f orth any com para tiv e a nalysis that could justif y a f inding of

dispa rate treat me nt.

W e conclu de tha t in the abse nce of a sp e c if ic obje ction, f urthe r app eal of the

ma gistr ate judge’s ruling on the question of qualif ie d im m u n ity has bee n w aived. Moreover, as a direct result of the f ailure to obje ct, the issue of qualif ied imm unity w as not brou ght to the atte ntion of the district court and , in turn, the court did not add ress the issue - 3 -No. 1 1-23 65

Mensa h v. Michigan Depa rtm ent of Corrections, et al. in its orde r den y ing the mo tion to dism iss in part and gr ant ing it in part. Beca use the re w as

no ruling in the district co urt’s orde r on qualif ied im mu nity unde r § 198 3, the re is not hing to rev iew on interlocu tory app eal. Finally , w hen the app eal was docke ted and the def end ant s’ atto rney w as asked to designat e the partie s on app eal and the “specif ic issues
y ou prop ose to raise,” coun sel respo nde d, “Th e specif ic is s u e is w het her Def end ant s W olf enb arger and Haas have qualif ied imm unity f rom Plaint if f 's claim tha t the y v iolate d 42 U.S.C. 198 1 by allegedly interf e ri n g w ith Plaint if f 's alleged cont ract w ith Def end ant Michig an Depa rtme nt of Corrections. ” T hus, the re w as no ref eren ce to the plaint if f ’s claims of discrimina tion und er § 198 3.

T he app eal is the ref ore DISMISSE D, and the case is REMANDED t o t h e d ist rict court f or f urthe r procee dings.

- 4 -