Kevin Bowman, Jr. v. Kent County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KEVIN BOWMAN, JR., ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:25-cv-1807 -v- ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney KENT COUNTY, ., ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER Plaintiff Kevin Bowman, Jr., acting without the assistance of counsel, alleges the defendants violated his civil rights. Plaintiff requested and the Magistrate Judge granted leave to proceed . The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint and issued a report recommending the court dismiss the federal causes of action for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a defendant and the Magistrate Judge issued a supplemental report with the same recommendation (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff then filed a motion to dismiss the new defendant (ECF No. 12) and objections (ECF No. 14). The court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, will adopt the R&Rs and will close this lawsuit.

After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. , 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).

A. Motion to Dismiss New Defendant (ECF No. 12) In the supplemental R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the new defendant, Kent County Court Services (KCCS). As a branch of the court system, KCCS enjoys immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff moves to withdraw KCCS as a defendant and proposes allowing him to file an amended complaint.

The court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw KCCS as a defendant by way of amended complaint. Plaintiff relies on Rule 15(a)(2), which allows a plaintiff to file an amended complaint with leave of the court. But the Local Rules require Plaintiff to file a proposed amended complaint when seeking leave to amend the complaint. W.D. Mich. LCivR 5.7(f). Plaintiff did not file a proposed amended complaint. The court notes that Rule 41(a) permits a party to dismiss and action but does not permit a plaintiff to dismiss individual defendants or claims.

B. Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 7 and 9) In the initial R&R (ECF No. 7), the Magistrate Judge recommend dismissing Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice. Generally, Plaintiff failed to allege what each defendant did with particularity. For his due process claim and Sixth Amendment claim, the Eleventh Amendment provides a defense for Kent County and its employees. Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support a municipal liability claim against Kent County. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a lack of probable cause for his Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. Plaintiff did not file any specific objections to the initial R&R. In the supplemental R&R (ECF No. 9), the Magistrate Judge concludes the Eleventh Amendment precludes Plaintiff’s claim against KCCS.

Plaintiff filed objections to the supplemental R&R (ECF No. 13). The court has carefully reviewed the objections. Plaintiff’s arguments and reasoning fail to specifically address the findings, conclusions and recommendations in the two R&Rs. KCCS enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiff did not allege specific facts to show how each defendant’s conduct gave rise to the causes of action. The allegations do not establish a basis for holding Kent County liable under .

Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Kent County Court Services (ECF No. 12). The court ADOPTS the reports and recommendations (ECF Nos. and 9) and dismisses the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 24, 2026 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge