UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GARRISON, GEORGE DAVIS,

ERNIE JONES and RONALD WORDEN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

Defendants.

/

Case Number: 09-10231

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs filed the instant action seeking injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive

damages for alleged violations of their civil rights by the Defendants. This matter is currently before

the Court on Magistrate Judge Charles Binder’s Report and Recommendation of October 16, 2009

(Docket #45), wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for

Summary Judgment (Docket #37) be granted, and that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order or Preliminary Injunction (Docket #11), Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket #28) and

Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 40) be denied.

After a thorough review of the court file, the respective parties’ briefs, the Report and

Recommendation, and the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed

by Plaintiffs, this Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and

conclusions of this Court, with one exception, as set forth below.

2:09-cv-10231-LPZ-CEB Doc # 50 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 309
1

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-15 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 478-79 (1983).

2

The Court finds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1

 does not operate to bar Plaintiffs’ claim

against Defendant Julius O. Curling because Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant Curling does not

stem from a state court judgment against any of the Plaintiffs. As the Magistrate Judge recognized,

however, Defendant Curling has absolute prosecutorial immunity because his alleged activities were

“in conjunction with his duties in functioning as a prosecutor.” See Spurlock v. Thompson, 330 F.3d

791, 797 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).

Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ cause of action

against Defendant Curling should be dismissed.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary

Judgment (Docket #37) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (Docket #11) is DENIED, (2) Plaintiffs’

Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket #28) is DENIED, and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (Docket # 40) is DENIED. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 9, 2009

2:09-cv-10231-LPZ-CEB Doc # 50 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 310
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of

record by electronic or U.S. mail on December 9, 2009.

S/Marie E. Verlinde

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-10231-LPZ-CEB Doc # 50 Filed 12/09/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 311