McDowell v. Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: July 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-10382
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANNY EUGENE MCDOWELL, Case No. 24-10382 Plaintiff, Honorable Brandy R. McMillion Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v.

RAPHAEL WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 41, 42)

Plaintiff Danny Eugene McDowell filed this pro se prisoner civil rights complaint against Raphael Washington, Robert Dunlap, and five John Doe defendants. ECF No. 1. The five John Doe defendants were dismissed on November 18, 2024, leaving Washington and Dunlap. ECF No. 37. The Honorable Brandy R. McMillion referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 23. McDowell moves the Court to take judicial notice of Ewing v. Wayne Cnty. Sheriff, No. 2:22-CV-11453, 2024 WL 2231348, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2024), adopted in part, rejected in part, No. 22-11453, 2024 WL 1674118 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2024). ECF No. 41. In that report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris found that the plaintiff had a reasonable likelihood of success of the merits on his claim that a jail

policy deprived him of recreational time and that the jail suffered from poor ventilation and air quality. Ewing, 2024 WL 2231348, at *8. But the Court may take judicial notice of “only indisputable court actions, such as the

entry of a guilty plea or the dismissal of a civil action,” and not “the truth of the matter asserted” in court filings. In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d 455, 468 (6th Cir. 2014); see also Cunningham v. Rapid Response Monitoring Servs., Inc., 251 F. Supp. 3d 1187, 1191 n.1 (M.D. Tenn. 2017).

Besides, as the Court found in a report and recommendation to dismiss McDowell’s complaint, he has not alleged plausible liability on the part of Washington or Dunlap.

McDowell also moves to strike the declarations submitted by defendants and to convert their motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. ECF No. 42. But the Court has recommended that McDowell’s complaint be dismissed because his claims against Washington and

Dunlap are implausible and the declarations are irrelevant to that recommended outcome. The Court thus DENIES McDowell’s motion to take judicial notice, and DENIES his motion to strike declarations and to convert defendants’

motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD Dated: July 8, 2025 United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS

Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 8, 2025.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager