UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DEVONNE MARSH, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-12947 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

v. 

 

LEO RHODES and THE CITY 

OF DETROIT, 

 

 Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 54]; 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 45]; 

AND DISMISSING THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an order requiring that Plaintiff DeVonne 

Marsh respond to Defendants’ discovery requests within 14 days – or by July 15, 2016. 

Marsh failed to comply with that order and, to date, still has not responded to 

Defendants’ discovery requests. On August 5, 2016, Defendants filed a second motion 

to dismiss. [Doc. 45]. Magistrate Judge David Grand submitted a Report and 

Recommendation (“R & R”), recommending that the Court GRANT Defendants’ motion. 

[Doc. 54]. Marsh filed timely objections to the R & R [Doc. 55], which are now before 

the Court. 

When a party properly objects to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation, the Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Bellmore-Byrne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2016 

WL 5219541, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2016).  Only specific objections are entitled to a 

de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). A non-specific 

2:14-cv-12947-VAR-DRG Doc # 62 Filed 01/25/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 457
2

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.” Bellmore-Byrn, 2016 WL 5219541, at *1 (quoting Howard v. Sec’y of Health 

and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). Neither is an objection that 

“merely reiterates an argument previously presented.” Id. 

 In Marsh’s objections, he argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider 

that: (1) because Defendants’ attorney of record in the Sixth Circuit is different from their 

attorney who filed the motion to dismiss in this Court, the motion to dismiss is invalid; 

and (2) because Defendants filed their second motion to dismiss on August 5, before 

the August 19 discovery deadline, he could not have been in violation of the prior order 

at the time they filed the motion. These objections lack merit. 

Marsh’s first argument (i.e., that Defendants’ motion is invalid because their 

attorney in this Court filed it, rather than their attorney in the Sixth Circuit) is baseless. 

Defendants’ attorney of record in this Court properly filed the second motion to dismiss. 

Moreover, this objection is invalid, because Marsh merely reiterates the same argument 

he made in response to Defendants’ motion – which the Magistrate Judge found to be 

“meritless” [Doc. 54, PgID 414, n. 4] – without specifying why the Magistrate Judge’s 

finding was wrong. See Bellmore-Byrn, 2016 WL 5219541, at *1. 

 Marsh’s second argument lacks factual support. The Court’s prior order required 

Marsh to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests within 14 days of it being entered 

(i.e., by July 15); the August 19 discovery deadline had no relevance to his duty to 

comply with the order. Therefore, by not responding to Defendants’ discovery requests 

by July 15, Marsh violated the Court’s order. 

2:14-cv-12947-VAR-DRG Doc # 62 Filed 01/25/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 458
3

After a de novo review of the motion and related filings, the Court finds that the R 

& R is well-reasoned and that Magistrate Judge Grand’s recommendation to grant the 

motion to dismiss is sound. Notably, Marsh still has not responded to Defendants’ 

discovery requests more than five months after being ordered to do so. This blatant 

disregard to the Court’s order warrants dismissal. 

The Court ADOPTS the R & R [Doc. 54], GRANTS Defendants’ second motion 

to dismiss [Doc. 45], and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS ORDERED.   

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: January 25, 2017 

2:14-cv-12947-VAR-DRG Doc # 62 Filed 01/25/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 459