1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DOUGLAS McCRAY, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12975 

 Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith 

vs. Magistrate Judge David. R. Grand 

AMINAH AL-SAEEDI and 

WAYNE COUNTY JAIL-DICKERSON, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER 

(1) ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

DATED JULY 31, 2015 (Dkt. 26); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 18); (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 22); AND (4) DISMISSING THE CASE WITH 

PREJUDICE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff brings an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated the 

Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishment by their deliberate 

indifference to his medical complaints. Compl. at 2-4 (Dkt. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges 

that he presented to the medical staff at the Wayne County Jail on January 19, 2015 with 

symptoms of a broken bone in his hand, which he claims should have promptly been x-rayed. Id. 

at 1-2. At this initial visit only painkillers and an icepack were prescribed, and it was not until 

Plaintiff’s second visit on January 22, 2015 that Defendant Al-Saeedi ordered an x-ray. Id. at 1; 

Ex. 2 to Defs. Mot. at 8 (cm/ecf page) (Dkt 18-2). In the 14 days between Al-Saeedi’s order and 

Plaintiff’s discharge from the jail into the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections 

(“MDOC”), however, an x-ray was never performed. Compl. at 1-2. When the x-ray finally was 

2:14-cv-12975-MAG-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 10/30/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 259
2 

performed by the MDOC on February 11, 2015, it revealed a broken bone in Plaintiff’s hand. Id. 

at 2. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants deliberately ignored his symptoms, purposefully failing 

to x-ray his hand in order to cut costs. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that this constitutes an Eight 

Amendment violation. Id. Plaintiff also brings a medical malpractice action against Ms. AlSaeedi based upon the same alleged events. Id. at 4. 

Following discovery, Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss and motion for 

summary judgment on March 20, 2015 (Dkt. 18). On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a crossmotion for summary judgment (Dkt. 22). Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s cross-motion 

on May 13, 2015 (Dkt. 24). 

The matter is now before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, which was issued on July 31, 2015 (Dkt. 26). In the R&R, the 

Magistrate Judge recommended granting Defendants’ motions, as well as denying Plaintiff’s 

cross-motion. Three days after the period for filing objections to the R&R had expired, Plaintiff 

filed an additional response to Defendants’ motions (entitled “Motion for Dismissal and for 

Summary Judgment Disputed”) (Dkt. 27). Plaintiff’s filing contains no reference to the R&R 

whatsoever, let alone a specific objection to its reasoning. 

The procedural background, along with the standard of review and legal principles 

governing cross-motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, has 

been adequately set forth by the Magistrate Judge in his R&R. The Court reviews de novo any 

portion of the R&R to which a specific objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). For the 

reasons that follow, the Court accepts the recommendation made in the R&R, grants Defendants’ 

motions, denies Plaintiff’s motion, and dismisses the case with prejudice. 

2:14-cv-12975-MAG-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 10/30/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 260
3 

II. ANALYSIS 

The Magistrate Judge recommended granting Defendants’ motions, because Plaintiff 

failed to put forth any evidence of deliberate indifference. First, as to Ms. Al-Saeedi, the 

Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff failed to establish the subjective element of a deliberate 

indifference claim, because there was no evidence that Ms. Al-Saeedi acted with the requisite 

“reckless disregard” of a “perceived” risk of harm. R&R at 7. The R&R also recommended 

rejecting Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim against Ms. Al-Saeedi, as Plaintiff failed to serve 

her with a notice-of-intent-to-sue, a procedural prerequisite to filing his complaint. Id. at 2 n.1. 

The R&R further recommended granting Defendants’ motions as to the Wayne County Jail, 

because the jail can only be held liable under § 1983 for the actions of its employee if a plaintiff 

can identify a “policy” or “custom,” pursuant to which the employee acted, and which caused the 

plaintiff’s injury. Id. at 9. The R&R reported that Plaintiff failed to show any evidence of such a 

custom. Id. at 10. 

Having reviewed the R&R, the Court concludes that it reached the right result for the 

right reasons. Furthermore, as discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to file an appropriate 

objection. 

 As an initial matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to object to the R&R – an 

omission that is dispositive. There is ample authority holding that a failure to object to an R&R 

releases the Court from any duty to independently review the issue. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 152 (1985).1 

                                                            

1

 There is authority requiring a court to review an R& R to which no objection is filed for “clear 

error.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no timely 

objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 

record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The R&R meets that standard, as the Court has 

found that the Magistrate Judge reached the right result for the right reasons. 

2:14-cv-12975-MAG-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 10/30/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 261
4 

Plaintiff’s August 17, 2015 filing — entitled “Motion for Dismissal and for Summary 

Judgment Disputed” — does not serve as an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, even 

though it was filed after the R&R issued. This filing actually constitutes an untimely response to 

Defendants’ March 20, 2015 motions, rather than an objection to the R&R. See Pl. Mot. at 1 

(referring to itself as a “Motion to Dispute Defendants[’] Motion[s]”). Plaintiff’s filing does not 

even acknowledge the R&R, and none of the points raised in Plaintiff’s filing target conclusions 

reached in the R&R. Id. at 1-2. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not object to 

the R&R, and the Court may accept the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for that reason 

alone. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 152. 

However, even if the filing were treated as an objection, it is defective for lack of 

specificity. The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement 

for specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object. Fields v. Lapeer 71-A 

Dist. Court Clerk, 2 F. App’x 481, 483 (6th Cir. 2001). Stated differently, “only those specific 

objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate 

review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a 

party may have.” Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff’s filing expresses in conclusory form Plaintiff’s (i) unawareness of his obligation 

to serve a notice-of-intent-to-sue, specially required for medical malpractice claims under 

Michigan law, M.C.L. § 600.2912b; and (ii) belief that Defendants’ citation to Wayne County 

Jail policy has “no relevance” where Defendants allegedly did not adhere to that policy. Pl. Mot. 

at 1-2. No recognizable analysis, or reference to the R&R, is set out in connection with these 

disembodied statements. Accordingly, even assuming that Plaintiff’s August 17, 2015 filing was 

intended to be an objection to the R&R, its lack of specificity is fatal. 

2:14-cv-12975-MAG-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 10/30/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 262
5 

Further, even if the Court were to address what Plaintiff may have intended to argue, his 

contentions lack merit. Lack of awareness of the requirements of the law generally provides no 

excuse for failing to adhere to these requirements. See Bonilla v. Hurley, 370 F.3d 494, 498 (6th 

Cir. 2004). Thus, Plaintiff’s ignorance of the notice-of-intent-to-sue requirements does not save 

his medical malpractice claim. And any contention of irrelevance leveled against Wayne 

County’s official policy regarding how it provides healthcare to inmates is unfounded; such a 

policy certainly satisfies the standard of relevance set forth under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, 

because it has a tendency to make a fact of consequence (here, the jail’s actual policy or custom) 

more or less probable than it would without the evidence. Accordingly, even when considered as 

to their possible substance, Plaintiff’s “arguments” lack merit. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court accepts the recommendation contained in the 

R&R, grants Defendants’ motions, denies Plaintiff’s motion, and dismisses the case with 

prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 30, 2015 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 30, 2015. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-12975-MAG-DRG Doc # 30 Filed 10/30/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 263