UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAMONICA ANDERSON, and

JOHN BLOUNT, 

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-11193 

v. DISTRICT JUDGE JOHN FEIKENS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

BASHAWN GAINES, 

SAMUEL GALLOWAY,

ALEXANDER ROTHS, 

DEAN MAZINSKI,

ANN MOTT, and

CITY OF DETROIT

Defendants.

_____________________________/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION: Defendant’s City of Detroit’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

should be GRANTED, as Plaintiffs have failed to identify a specific custom or policy which

contributed to, or resulted in, their alleged treatment.

 * * *

Plaintiffs, by and through retained counsel, filed the instant Complaint in the Wayne

County Circuit Court against the City of Detroit and five Detroit police officers. The matter

was removed to federal court on March 31, 2009. Plaintiffs alleged that they were physically

assaulted by the five police officers while being apprehended and detained on August 20,

2008, without cause and in an attempt to inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs

asserted that they were not being assaultive towards the police officers and that the use

of such force against them was excessive. Plaintiffs claimed that the unreasonable force

2:09-cv-11193-VAR-DAS Doc # 17 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 66
2

used against them caused numerous physical injuries, and they sought compensatory and

punitive damages.

Discovery closed on August 4, 2009. Defendant City of Detroit filed a Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment on September 4, 2009, arguing that Plaintiffs cannot show that

their civil rights were violated pursuant to an unconstitutional municipal policy. Plaintiffs

have not filed a timely response.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(C). The moving party has the burden of

showing an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. Covington v.

Knox County Sch. Sys., 205 F.3d 912, 914 (6th Cir. 2000). Once the moving party has met

its burden of production, the non-moving party must come forward with significant probative

evidence showing that a genuine issue exists for trial. Id. A mere scintilla of evidence is

insufficient to defeat a supported motion for summary judgment; rather, “there must be

evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). While the evidence itself need not be the

sort admissible at trial, the evidence must be more than the non-movant’s own pleadings

and affidavits. Ashbook v. Block, 917 F.2d 918, 921 (6th Cir. 1990); see also Street v. J.C.

Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the non-moving party

may not rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant’s denial of a

disputed fact).

2:09-cv-11193-VAR-DAS Doc # 17 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 67
3

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The mere allegation of a constitutional violation, without legal or factual support, will

not withstand a motion for summary judgment. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

Where the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a

grant of summary judgment is proper unless that party goes beyond the pleadings to

demonstrate a genuine issue of fact. Id. 

There is no proper basis alleged in the complaint for a claim against the City of

Detroit. The general rule is that a local governmental unit may not be sued under § 1983

for a wrong inflicted solely by its employees or agents unless they are executing some

official policy, practice or custom. Monell v. NYC Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.

658, 694 (1978). In failing to file a response to the dispositive motion, Plaintiffs effectively

concede that there was not a specific custom or policy which contributed to, or resulted in,

their alleged treatment. Accordingly, Defendant’s City of Detroit Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment should be granted. 

The parties are advised that any objections to this Report and Recommendation

must be filed with the Court within ten (10) days after they are served with a copy, or further

appeal from Judge Feikens’ acceptance thereof is waived.

 s/Donald A. Scheer

 DONALD A. SCHEER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: November 5, 2009

______________________________________________________________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on November 5, 2009 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court

sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was

mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on November 5, 2009: None.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217

2:09-cv-11193-VAR-DAS Doc # 17 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 68