Crenshaw v. Minard
2:24-cv-10955
E.D. Mich.May 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Demario Reed Crenshaw filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy Minard and Sheriff Chris Swanson, alleging cruel and unusual punishment, extortion, unlawful search and seizure, and assault.
- The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, who reviewed Swanson's motion to dismiss.
- Judge Grand issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the claims against Swanson be dismissed due to insufficient factual allegations linking Swanson to the alleged wrongdoing.
- Crenshaw objected, arguing that Swanson ordered and/or witnessed the events and failed to discipline Minard.
- Defendants moved for leave to file a late response to this objection, which the district court granted.
- The district judge conducted a de novo review of Crenshaw's objections, finding them to merely restate prior arguments and adopting the Report and Recommendation in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal culpability of Swanson | Swanson ordered and witnessed actions | Crenshaw failed to plead facts | Crenshaw's allegations are conclusory; dismissed |
| Viable failure to train claim against Swanson | Swanson's supervision and discipline failures | No sufficient facts pleaded | No viable failure to train claim; dismissed |
| Adequacy of Crenshaw’s objections | Swanson directly participated | Arguments are duplicative | Objections are duplicative; no error found |
| Leave to file untimely response | N/A | Response is relevant | Leave granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Tchrs., Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987) (outlines standard for reviewing objections to magistrate judge recommendations)
- Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991) (addresses requirements for objections to magistrate judge findings)