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, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

RESPOND TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF #19) 

 On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Lee (“Lee”) filed a Complaint against 

Defendant Dr. Sai Li, a psychiatrist at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. (See 

Complaint, ECF #1.) The Court thereafter referred this action to the Magistrate 

Judge for all pretrial proceedings. (See ECF #3.) 

 Lee then filed a First Amended Complaint in which he named Defendant Eli 

Lilly Corporate Center (“Eli Lilly”) as an additional Defendant. (See First 

Amended Compl., ECF #5.) Lee appears to accuse Eli Lilly of harassment, and he 

claims that Eli Lilly failed to provide him a free voucher for the prescription 

medication Cialis. (See id.) 

 On October 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss Lee’s claims against Eli 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 152
2

Lilly. (See the “R&R,” ECF #18.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that “Mr. Lee 

has not stated any plausible claim against Eli Lilly, and his complaint as to Eli 

Lilly lacks any arguable basis in law or fact.” (Id. at 5, Pg. ID 138.) The 

Magistrate Judge then informed Lee that “[a]ny objections to this Report and 

Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days...” (Id.) The Magistrate 

Judge told Lee 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.) 

 Lee has now filed a motion to extend the time by which he must file his 

objections to the R&R. (See ECF #19.) It appears that Lee is claiming that he 

needs additional time because he “became ill” and because he may be awaiting 

additional information he has requested via the Freedom of Information Act. (See 

id. at 1-2, Pg. ID 140-141.) 

 Having reviewed Lee’s motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Lee’s 

request for additional time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Lee’s objections must be filed with 

the Court no later than December 3, 2014. To be clear, the Clerk of the Court 

must receive Lee’s objections no later than December 3, 2014. Lee must therefore 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 153
3

submit and/or mail to the Court any objections sufficiently in advance to ensure 

that the Court receives the objections no later than December 3, 2014.

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

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

failure to lodge specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 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). As this Court has previously held, “[a]n ‘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). This finding is fully consistent with precedent from the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court has held that “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.” Zimmerman v. 

Cason, 354 Fed. App’x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Indeed, “[a] general objection to 

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

object. The district court’s attention is not focused on any specific issues for 

review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless ... The 

duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, 

and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Id. (quoting Howard v. 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 154
4

Sec’y of Health and Human Serv., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2001)). Consistent 

with this precedent, the Court will not consider the merits of any vague, general, or 

conclusory objections to the R&R. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 12, 2014 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on November 12, 2014, by electronic means 

and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 155