Opinion
23-11235
03-20-2024
HELIAS HERMES SEVERUS EL-BEY, a/k/a PAUL GOREE Plaintiff, v. JASON REEVES et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 28), (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (DKT. 29), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 16)
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge
The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. issued on January 2, 2024 (Dkt. 28). In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that this Court grant Defendants Jason Reeves and Wayne Fire Department's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Dkt. 16). Plaintiff Paul Goree a/k/a Helias Hermes Severus filed an apparent objection to the R&R (Dkt. 29). For the reasons that follow, the Court (i) accepts the recommendation in the R&R, (ii) overrules El-Bey's objection, (iii) and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's name is unclear from the pleadings. To avoid confusion, the Court refers to Plaintiff as El-Bey, which appears to be his preferred name.
I. BACKGROUND
The full relevant factual background is set forth in the magistrate judge's R&R. See R&R at 1-2. El-Bey was injured following an altercation with a non-party. See id. at 1. Defendants were called to the scene of El-Bey's injury and placed him in ambulance for transport to receive medical care. Id. While in the ambulance, El-Bey removed his neck brace, assaulted Reeves, and attempted to evade Defendants' medical assistance. Id. El-Bey was later arrested for the assault on Reeves. Id. at 2. El-Bey's amended complaint alleges that Reeves perjured himself during a preliminary hearing on El-Bey's arrest and asserts one claim under 18 U.S.C § 242, which makes it a crime to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege of the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss El-Bey's amended complaint, which the magistrate judge recommends granting. See Mot.; R&R. The magistrate judge found that El-Bey's claim under § 242 fails because that provision does not provide a private right of action. R&R at 5. The magistrate judge further explained that, to the extent El-Bey intended to sue Reeves for perjury, he lacks a private cause of action because there is no private right of action for violations of criminal law. R&R at 6.
For the reasons that follow, the Court accepts the R&R in its entirety.
II. ANALYSIS
The Court has considered El-Bey's objections and finds them to be without merit. An “objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge's determination, “without explaining the source of the error,” is not considered a valid objection. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Here, El-Bey filed an “Affidavit of Facts” that does not constitute a valid objection to the R&R. See Aff. (Dkt. 29). While it does appear to express a general disagreement with the R&R, the affidavit raises no specific grounds for why the R&R is incorrect. See id. El-Bey's disagreement with the R&R, without more, does not constitute a valid objection because it fails to “explain the source” of any error in the R&R, as is required. Accordingly, the Court accepts the recommendation contained in the magistrate judge's R&R.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court: (i) adopts the recommendation in the magistrate judge's R&R (Dkt. 28), (ii) overrules El-Bey's objection (Dkt. 29), (iii) grants Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 16), and dismisses the case in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.