UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MALINDA L. GARDNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 14-14134

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

FEBRUARY 9, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [53]

On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff MaLinda L. Gardner commenced this pro se

employment discrimination suit against the State of Michigan and several individuals who

evidently supervised or worked with Plaintiff during her employment with the Defendant

State, alleging that she was unlawfully discharged on the basis of her race, religion, and

age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In a

report and recommendation ("R & R") issued on February 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Mona

K. Majzoub now recommends that the Court grant Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss

and that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed in its entirety, on the grounds (i) that Plaintiff

failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge's order directing her to file an amended

complaint setting forth specific factual allegations in support of her claims of discrimination,

and (ii) that even assuming Plaintiff's (untimely) submission in response to the Magistrate

Judge's order could be construed as an amended complaint, this pleading does not provide

the requisite fair notice of the basis for Plaintiff's claims. On February 22, 2017, Plaintiff

2:14-cv-14134-NGE-MKM Doc # 55 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 247
filed various objections to the R & R. For the reasons that follow, the Court overrules these

objections and adopts the R & R in its entirety.

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff faces a substantial procedural hurdle in lodging

objections to the R & R, where she failed to file a response to Defendants' underlying

motion to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit has explained that a party generally may not “raise at

the district court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented to the magistrate.” 

Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902-03 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). Having passed on her

opportunity to advance arguments before the Magistrate Judge on the issues presented

in Defendants' underlying motion to dismiss, Plaintiff cannot now pursue these arguments

in her objections to the R & R.

Even if the Court were to entertain these objections, they would fail on the merits. 

Most notably, Plaintiff's objections consist almost entirely of terse, one or two sentence

complaints about various aspects of the proceedings in this case. Under the pertinent

Federal Rule governing these objections, however, Plaintiff must present "specific"

challenges to the Magistrate Judge's "proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also R & R at 9-10 (alerting the parties that they must file "specific

objections" to the R & R that identify and "recite precisely the provision[s] of this Report and

Recommendation to which [they] pertain[]"). The bulk of Plaintiff's objections are not

directed at the R & R's proposed findings and recommendations — or, indeed, at any issue

actually addressed in the R & R. Rather, Plaintiff lodges generalized complaints

concerning such matters as (i) a purportedly "untrue" recitation somewhere in the record

(but not in the R & R) of the history of Plaintiff's employment with the Michigan Department

of Human Services, (ii) the number of motions to dismiss filed by Defendants, (iii) alleged

2

2:14-cv-14134-NGE-MKM Doc # 55 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 248
misrepresentations made by defense counsel at a hearing before the Magistrate Judge, (iv)

Plaintiff's delayed receipt of a scheduling order issued by the Magistrate Judge, and (v) an

arbitration proceeding in which Plaintiff and her employer evidently participated prior to the

commencement of this suit. The Court need not address these objections, as they have

no bearing on the decision whether to adopt the R & R.

This leaves, at best, three sets of objections that arguably pertain to the Magistrate

Judge's rulings in the R & R. First, in objections 8, 9, 10, and 12, Plaintiff seemingly takes

issue with the Magistrate Judge's determination that her amended complaint is "insufficient

to notify Defendants of the conduct of which she complains," and therefore fails to meet the

pleading standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See R & R at 7-9. In Plaintiff's view, her

June 10, 2016 submission in response to the Magistrate Judge's order directing her to file

an amended complaint includes sufficient factual content to support the inference that she

was unlawfully discharged, and she argues that this submission, along with other

information purportedly provided to Defendants in the course of a prior arbitration

proceeding, should serve as adequate notice to Defendants of the factual basis for her

claims of discrimination.

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, however, Plaintiff's June 10, 2016 submission

cannot plausibly be construed as an amended complaint that meets the pleading standards

of Rule 8(a), as it consists entirely of "bulleted lists of allegations against the individual

defendants" that are conclusory in nature and unconnected in any way to a viable claim of

discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff's race, religion, or age. See R & R at 5, 8-9. 

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff suggests that any shortfalls in this submission — e.g.,

its lack of dates or a chronology of any sort — may be overcome by reference to

3

2:14-cv-14134-NGE-MKM Doc # 55 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 249
(unspecified) information purportedly shared with Defendants in a prior arbitration

proceeding, the Court declines to accept Plaintiff's bare assurance that Defendants have

been given adequate notice of the basis for her claims, where the standards of Rule 8(a)

are sufficiently flexible and lenient to allow even a pro se litigant to prepare a complaint

that supplies the requisite "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S. Ct. 992, 998

(2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Magistrate Judge did not ask

too much of Plaintiff by ordering her to file an amended complaint that met these pleading

standards, and the Court concurs in the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff failed to

comply with this order.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff evidently insists in objection 13 that any such lack of

compliance with the Magistrate Judge's order does not warrant the drastic sanction of

dismissal. To be sure, this Court found in an earlier order in this case that dismissal was

not warranted at that time because less severe sanctions had not yet been employed to

ensure Plaintiff's compliance with the Magistrate Judge's orders. See 3/17/2016 Opinion

and Order at 4-5. In that very same order, however, the Court expressly cautioned Plaintiff

that "any future noncompliance with this Court's orders . . . will be grounds for dismissal." 

Id. at 5-6. Having concurred in the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff failed to comply

with an order to file an amended complaint, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's 

further conclusion that dismissal is an appropriate sanction for this noncompliance,

particularly where there is no reason to believe that a sanction short of dismissal might lead

to a different outcome here.

4

2:14-cv-14134-NGE-MKM Doc # 55 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 250
Finally, Plaintiff protests in objection 14 that the Magistrate Judge imposed

unreasonable standards on her as a pro se litigant. Contrary to Plaintiff's suggestion,

however, the Magistrate Judge did not demand that Plaintiff expound upon the law in her

submissions to the Court, or that her amended complaint include citations to supporting

legal authority. Rather, the Magistrate Judge faulted this pleading for its lack of the

requisite "short and plain statement" of Plaintiff's claims, and its absence of specific factual

allegations that could provide fair notice of the basis for her claims and allow Defendants

to formulate defenses against these claims. See R & R at 7-9. These are not onerous

burdens, and Plaintiff's pro se status does not relieve her of the obligation to meet them.

For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections [54] and ADOPTS

the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [53]. In accordance with these rulings,

Defendants' June 24, 2016 motion to dismiss [51] is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: February 27, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on February 27, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

5

2:14-cv-14134-NGE-MKM Doc # 55 Filed 02/27/17 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 251