Taylor v. Hodge

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00145
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS RICHARD TAYLOR, JR. and JESSICA SUE TAYLOR,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:24-cv-145

v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

COLE HODGE, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Vermaat’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 33), to which all parties have lodged some objection. (ECF Nos. 34, 35, and 36). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where—as here—a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2 (3d ed. June 2024 update). Specifically, the Rules provide that: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has conducted the required review. Plaintiffs originally filed suit pro se in the 41st Judicial Circuit Court of Iron County. (ECF No. 1-1). Defendants removed to this Court, (ECF No. 1, PageID.2), and moved for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF Nos. 13, 19, 22). As briefing proceeded, Plaintiffs secured counsel who appeared on their behalf. Counsel responded to the defense motions but also sought leave to file

a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 24). Counsel included a proposed First Amended Complaint with his original request, (ECF No. 24-1), and later updated the proposed pleading, (ECF No. 30-2). The most recent version of the proposed First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30-2) streamlines and expands the original pro se allegations. It also makes some changes to the details of the original pro se allegations. Leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Magistrate Judge believed the proposed amendment would be futile and therefore recommended denial of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. The Magistrate Judge’s view may ultimately prevail on the merits, but after de novo review the Court believes the best way to test this is with a new round of motion practice based on the counseled version of the proposed First

Amendment Complaint most recently submitted and signed by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (ECF No. 30- 2). This will allow the defense to make all the challenges it now raises as a matter of futility in a proper motion, whether under Rule 12(b)(6), or otherwise. And it will allow all parties and the Court to have the benefit of a fully counseled First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, and in accordance with the liberal standard for amendment under Rule 15(a), the Court sustains Plaintiffs’ objection and grants Plaintiffs’ leave to amend their complaint. This moots the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings based on Plaintiffs’ original pro se complaint. Ky. Press Ass’n v. Kentucky, 355 F. Supp. 2d 853, 857 (E.D. Ky. 2005) (noting that in general, “an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, thus making the motion to dismiss the original complaint moot”) (citing Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that the amended complaint supersedes all previous complaints and becomes the operative pleading)). The Court therefore dismisses those motions as moot. The First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30-2) is deemed filed and served as of the date of this

Order. Under Rule 15(a)(3), the Court extends Defendants’ deadline for response to the First Amended Complaint to September 12, 2025. Defendants may answer or move under Rule 12 as they see fit. IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: August 14, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE