UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES FITZGERALD AUSTIN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-12610

Paul D. Borman

v. United States District Judge

R. Steven Whalen

PAMELA THOMPSON, et al., United States Magistrate

Judge

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE

R. STEVEN WHALEN’S AUGUST 11, 2015 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(ECF NO. 26), GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF NOS. 12, 22)

AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s August

11, 2015 Report and Recommendation to Grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice. (ECF No. 26, Report and Recommendation.) This Court

reviews de novo the portions of a report and recommendation to which specific objections have been

filed. 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district “court may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.

Having conducted a de novo review of the parts of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation to which valid objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the

Court OVERRULES the Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice.

1

2:14-cv-12610-PDB-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 01/12/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 154
I. BACKGROUND

The Magistrate Judge adequately summarized the background of this case in his August 11,

2015 Report and Recommendation and the Court adopts that summary here. (ECF No. 26, Report

and Recommendation 1-2.) 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the report and recommendation to

which objections have been filed. 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district “court

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge.” Id. Objections must be timely to be considered. A party who receives notice

of the need to timely object yet fails to do so is deemed to waive review of the district court's order

adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations. Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515,

519-20 (6th Cir. 1999). “[A] party must file timely objections with the district court to avoid

waiving appellate review.” Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373

(6th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original). 

Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. 

Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint those

portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). A general objection, or one that merely restates the

arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the

magistrate judge. An “objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge's

determination, “without explaining the source of the error,” is not considered a valid objection. 

Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Specific

2

2:14-cv-12610-PDB-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 01/12/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 155
objections enable the Court to focus on the particular issues in contention. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. 

Without specific objections, “[t]he functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both

the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort

wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the

Magistrate's Act.” Id. “‘[O]bjections disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate's recommendation

but fail[ing] to specify the findings [the objector] believed were in error” are too summary in nature. 

Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). 

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Objections urge this Court to “give [him] an opportunity to prove [his] case in

court,” but fail to identify specific portions of Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Report and

Recommendation with which Plaintiff disagrees. Plaintiff’s Objections do not point to error in

(indeed do not even acknowledge) the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that Defendants are entitled

to dismissal of this action on at least two independent bases: (1) private citizens cannot compel

criminal investigations and Defendants were under no affirmative duty to investigate Plaintiff’s

claims, and (2) each Defendant was protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. Plaintiff’s

Objections do nothing more than repeat his allegations, reiterate his “evidence,” and disagree,

“without explaining the source of the error,” with the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate determination that

Defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint dismissed. Such

general statements of disagreement with the result reached by the Magistrate Judge fail to give this

Court sufficient direction to enable the Court to focus on the particular issues in contention and are

not valid objections. 

3

2:14-cv-12610-PDB-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 01/12/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 156
IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 27), ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26), GRANTS Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos.

12, 22) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 11, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party

of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on January 11, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

4

2:14-cv-12610-PDB-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 01/12/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 157