Listen to this article
Where a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim has been brought against a defendant title insurance company, that claim must be dismissed because the defendant is not a state actor within the meaning of §1983.
“This case concerns the sale of a house involved in a trust dispute. Before this Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’), ECF No. 52, which recommends that this Court partially grant Defendant First American Title Insurance Company’s Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. 31. Plaintiff Thomas Warren Howe objects to the R&R. ECF No. 54. As explained below, Howe’s objections will be overruled and Judge Grand’s R&R will be adopted. …
“In January 2025, Howe filed suit against First American Title Agency, alleging that a series of fraudulent and/or negligent acts by his brother, a Genesee County Probate Court judge, a court-appointed trustee (Kraig Sippell), various attorneys, and First American itself culminated in a ‘fraudulent sale’ of his mother’s home that deprived him of his rights and interest in the property. … The claims against First American center on its role in providing title insurance and closing services in connection with that sale to third-party purchasers. … Howe’s complaint asserts two counts under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and a number of state law claims.
“In June 2025, First American moved to dismiss, arguing that Howe’s sole remaining federal claim—an alleged violation of his due process rights under §1983—warranted dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). ECF No. 31. Howe opposed the motion. ECF No. 34. On October 27, 2025, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted in part. Specifically, Judge Grand recommended dismissal of Howe’s §1983 claims on the ground that First American is not a state actor and therefore cannot be held liable under that statute, while declining to recommend dismissal of the remaining state law claims. ECF No. 52. Howe filed objections, and First American responded. …
“Howe objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that First American is not a state actor within the meaning of §1983. Upon de novo review, this Court agrees with Judge Grand’s analysis and will overrule the objection.
“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him of a federally protected right. The Sixth Circuit evaluates whether a private party’s conduct is attributable to the state under one of three tests: the nexus test, the public function test, or the compulsion test. …
“None of the three state-action tests is satisfied here, and Howe’s objection largely recycles arguments Judge Grand already considered and rejected. …
“Because Howe has not alleged facts sufficient to establish that First American exercised powers traditionally reserved to the state, acted under state compulsion, or engaged in joint activity with any state actor, his §1983 claim fails for lack of state action. …”
