1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT EDWARD LEE, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-11722 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

SAI LI, MD, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #46), 

(2) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF #49), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF #32) 

 In this action, Plaintiff Robert Lee (“Lee”) alleges, among other things, that 

while he was a patient at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Defendant Dr. Sai Li 

(“Dr. Li”), a psychiatrist, forced him to take medication that caused certain side 

effects. (See Am. Compl. ECF #5.) Dr. Li moved for judgment on the pleadings 

on July 16, 2015 (the “Motion”). (See ECF #32.) The assigned Magistrate Judge 

issued a report and recommendation on March 3, 2016, in which he recommended 

that the Court grant the Motion (the “R&R”). (See ECF #46.) 

 On March 23, 2016, Lee filed a motion with the Court asking for to extend 

the time to file objections to the R&R (the “Motion to Extend Time”). (See ECF 

#48.) The Court granted the Motion to Extend Time and instructed Lee to file his 

objections to the R&R by no later than April 15, 2016. (See ECF #49 at 2, Pg. ID 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 51 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 355
2

350.) The Court further instructed Lee that his objections needed to specifically 

respond to the portions of the R&R to which he objected, and that the failure to file 

such specific objections would result in a waiver of both his right to object and to 

appeal this Court’s ruling: 

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 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. 

(Id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 350-51; emphasis in original.) 

 Lee filed his objections on April 14, 2016, in a filing Lee titled “Count I 

$200,000/Motion for R&R” (the “Objections”). (See ECF #50.) The Court has 

reviewed Lee’s filing and cannot discern any specific objections to the R&R. Lee 

does ask for additional time to respond to the R&R, but Lee does not explain why 

the extra time the Court has already provided is not sufficient, nor why he needs 

more time to respond to the R&R. Lee also appears to object to the fact that he 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 51 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 356
3

was not allowed to conduct discovery, but the Court does not believe discovery is 

warranted. Finally, the Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it well-reasoned and 

well-supported. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lee’s Objections to the 

R&R (ECF #49) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 

R&R (ECF #46) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Dr. Li’s Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF #32) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the 

R&R, and Lee’s claims against Dr. Li are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 14, 2016 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on April 14, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

                                                            

1

 Lee has also filed a document with the Court titled “Motion to Plead.” (See ECF 

#45.) To the extent the “Motion to Plead” requests any relief, the Court DENIES

the motion as moot. 

2:14-cv-11722-MFL-RSW Doc # 51 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 357