1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT LEE, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-11722 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

SAI LI, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REJECT ORDER AND AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF #48) 

 On March 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a report and 

recommendation in which he recommended that this Court grant Defendant Dr. Sai 

Li’s (“Dr. Li”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “R&R”). (See ECF #46.) 

At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that 

“[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 

fourteen (14) days...” (Id. at 7, Pg. ID 341.) The Magistrate Judge then told the 

parties that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal,” and that the “[f]iling of objections which raise some issues 

but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation.” (Id.) 

 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 49 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 349
2

 Plaintiff Robert Lee (“Lee”) timely filed a response to the R&R in which he 

appears to (1) raise some objections to the R&R and (2) ask the Court for 

additional time to file further objections (the “Motion”). (See ECF #48.) Having 

reviewed the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Lee’s request for 

additional time to file objections to the R&R is GRANTED as set forth below. 

The Motion in all other respects is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Lee must file all objections that he 

may have to the R&R with the Court no later than April 15, 2016. To be clear, the 

Clerk of the Court must receive Lee’s objections no later than April 15, 2016. Lee 

must therefore submit and/or mail to the Court any objections sufficiently in 

advance to ensure that the Court receives the objections no later than April 15, 

2016.

 Each of Lee’s objections must specifically and precisely identify the 

provision of the R&R to which the objection pertains. Lee is again cautioned that 

the failure to lodge specific objections to the R&R constitutes a waiver of both his 

right to object and his right to appeal. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985). “An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a 

magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented 

before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 

327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Indeed, “[a] general objection to the 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 49 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 350
3

entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would failure to object.” 

Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed. App’x 228, 230. Finally, “the filing of vague, 

general, or conclsuory objections does not meet the requirement of specific 

objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Id. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 24, 2016 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on March 24, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 49 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 351