VanZant v. Newaygo County Child Protective Services

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC LEE VANZANT, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:24-cv-1033 -v- ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney NEWAYGO COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE ) SERVICES, ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Eric Vanzant, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed a lawsuit against Newaygo County Child Protective Services. Plaintiff pleads both constitutional and state law claims. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10). The Magistrate Judge issued a report concluding that Defendant enjoys immunity from the federal claims under the Eleventh Amendments (ECF No. 19). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant’s motion by dismissing the federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff filed objections (ECF Nos. 20 and 21).1 The court will adopt the report and recommendation. 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. §

1 Plaintiff filed two copies of his objections. The first copy (ECF No. 20) does not include page 3. The second copy (ECF No. 21) includes page 3. 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).

Plaintiff objects to the legal conclusion that the Eleventh Amendment applies to lawsuits brought against a state by its own citizens. Plaintiff reasons that the text of the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit such lawsuit. The court overrules Plaintiff’s objection. Plaintiff correctly summarizes the text of the amendment. More than two hundred years ago, however, our Supreme Court considered

and rejected this very argument. , 134 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1890); , 527 U.S. 706, 727-28 (1999) (“Following this approach, the Court has upheld States’ assertions of sovereign immunity in various contexts In , the Court held that sovereign immunity barred a citizen from suing his own State under the federal-question head of jurisdiction. The Court was unmoved by the petitioner’s argument that the Eleventh Amendment, by its terms, applied

only to suits brought by citizens of other States[.]”) (italics added). This court must follow Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 19). The court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 8, 2025 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge