UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP BERRYMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 14-12593

SCOTT FREED, R. VITTITOW, L. HON. AVERN COHN

ELKINS, EXELBY, N. CULBERSON, 

KEDRON, FAY TAYLOR, FRED FUNSTON,

RESZKE, ADRIANE NEFF, and

RUHL-ANDERSON,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 84)

AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 83)

AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT ADRIANE NEFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 64)

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff Philip Berryman1

 filed this action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and 1988, essentially claiming that defendants,

employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections conspired to violate his civil

rights by issuing false and/or retaliatory misconduct tickets and destroying documents

relating to him. Defendants are: Scott Freed, R. Vittitow, L. Elkins, Exelby, N.

Culberson, Kedron, Fay Taylor, Fred Funston, Reszke, Adriane Neff, and

1

Plaintiff was originally joined by Charles Starling and Daniel Mora. The Court,

adopting the magistrate judges’s report and recommendation, severed plaintiff’s claims

and dismissed Starling and Mora. See Doc. 42.

2:14-cv-12593-AC-MKM Doc # 86 Filed 02/21/17 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1037
Ruhl-Anderson. Plaintiff claims violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and

Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages,

and any other relief that the Court deems appropriate.

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings, (Doc. 27),

and before whom defendant Adriane Neff filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc.

64). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR),

recommending that the motion be granted on the grounds that plaintiff’s claims against

Neff are barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 83). 

Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections to the MJRR. For the reasons that

follow, the objections will be overruled, the MJRR will be adopted, and Neff’s motion for

summary judgment will be granted.

II.

A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate

judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

district "court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate" judge. Id. The requirement of de novo

review "is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution

mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life

tenure." United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985).

A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously

presented, is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the

magistrate judge. An "objection" that does nothing more than state a disagreement with

a magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been

2

2:14-cv-12593-AC-MKM Doc # 86 Filed 02/21/17 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1038
presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context. Howard v.

Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 991) ("It is arguable in

this case that Howard's counsel did not file objections at all.... [I]t is hard to see how a

district court reading [the ‘objections'] would know what Howard thought the magistrate

had done wrong.").

III.

Plaintiff’s objections for the most part repeat the arguments considered and

rejected by the magistrate judge. As the magistrate judge carefully explained, giving

plaintiff the broadest interpretation of events, his claim against Neff is barred by the

applicable three year statute of limitations. Nothing in plaintiff’s objections convince the

Court that the magistrate judge erred in its analysis or recommendation.

IV.

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The

MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Neff’s motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 21, 2017

Detroit, Michigan

3

2:14-cv-12593-AC-MKM Doc # 86 Filed 02/21/17 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1039