Lewis v. Michigan Department of State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION MARGARET LEWIS and MALIYAH LEWIS, Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:25-cv-11866 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, et al., Honorable Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. ____________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT On June 20, 2025, Plaintiffs Margaret and Maliyah Lewis filed a pro se Complaint against the Michigan Department of State, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, the Michigan State Police, the Michigan Department of Child Services (MDCS), the Detroit Police Department (DPD), and the State of Michigan itself. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs broadly allege that unidentified individuals working for these Defendants stalked and harassed them. Id. at PageID.5.

On June 25, 2025, the undersigned referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 6. That same day, Judge Morris granted Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 7. Two days later, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 8. But because Plaintiffs proceed IFP, their amended complaint is subject to screening under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Groulx v. Takeda Pharm. Co., No. 1:24-CV-12000, 2025 WL 415746, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2025) (noting the PLRA screening requirement applies to “non-prisoners who proceed IFP”). Under PLRA screening, courts must dismiss IFP complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek monetary relief from immune defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

On July 7, 2025, Judge Morris issued a report (R&R) recommending this Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 9. Judge Morris also noted that the State of Michigan is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Id. at PageID.34. Consistent with Civil Rule 72, Judge Morris provided the Parties 14 days to object. Id. at PageID.34–35. But the Parties did not do so. Thus, they have therefore forfeited their right to appeal Judge Morris’ findings. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). Having reviewed the record, there is no clear error in Judge Morris’s R&R. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Judge Morris’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 9, is ADOPTED.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8, is DISMISSED.

This is a final order and closes the above-captioned case.

Dated: July 30, 2025 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge