UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK DESHAWN MILLER,

DARREN WALLACE CHAPPELL, and

STACEY SIMEON HALL,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

HANWHA L&C MONROE PLANT, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-12500

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On May 26, 2017, Magistrate Judge Grand entered an Report and

Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Defendants Hanwha L&C Monroe Plant

(“Hanwha”) and Cathy Garello-Deron’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff

Darren Chappell be granted. (Doc. No. 74). Plaintiff filed suit alleging claims of racial

employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42

U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Defendants moved for summary

judgment, arguing Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination. 

(Doc. No. 44). For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

R&R (Doc. 41) and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The parties have not objected to the R&R’s summary of the facts and procedural

history. Therefore, the Court adopts that portion of the R&R. (See Doc. 74, pp. 2-9).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district judge “shall make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

which objection is made.” See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674

(1980); Fed. R. Civ. Pro 72(b)(3) (stating that a district judge must determine de novo

any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions); E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(2). In conducting a de novo review, the Court should look to the relevant

pleadings and evidence put forth in motions; a failure to file objections, or a failure to file

specific objections, constitutes waiver. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985);

United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) states that a party “may serve and file

specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” (Emphasis

added). Objections to a magistrate’s report cannot be general, for general objections

“[have] the same [effect] as would a failure to object. The district court's attention

[would not be] focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial

reference to the magistrate useless.” Howard v. Sec’y of Heath & Human Servs., 932

F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). The functions of the district court “[would be] effectively

duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks.” Id. The

objections “must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that

are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)

(citing Howard, 932 F.2d at 509).

2
III. ANALYSIS

After reviewing all of the relevant filings, the Magistrate Judge found that

Chappell failed to show a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the context of a

claim for failure to hire. Specifically, Chappell did not show he was qualified for the job

for which Hanwha was hiring. According to Deron, who worked in human resources,

she reviewed Chappell’s resume and found it did not reflect stability, longevity, or

relevant experience, so he was not selected for an interview. (Doc. No. 74 at 14). 

Moreover, Chappell conceded during his deposition that his resume reflected that he

had not held a job for more than six months. (R&R at 15). He additionally conceded he

did not have relevant experience reflected on his resume and had failed to include some

relevant experience. Further, Chappell failed to establish that his qualifications were

similar to the qualifications of nonprotected members of the class. Finally, Chappell

failed to show that Hanwha continued to seek other applicants with his qualifications

after his request for employment was denied. 

Even if Plaintiff could show a prima facie case, he failed to show that Defendants’

proffered reasons for not hiring him were merely pretextual. The Magistrate Judge

explained that Plaintiff “has presented no evidence to suggest that Hanwha and Deron

did not select him as a candidate for employment based on his race, rather than

because his resume indicated that he lacked numerous qualifications that [Defendants]

considered important – and that many other applicants possessed.” (Doc. No. 74 at p.

19). 

The Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") must be filed within fourteen days of service and that a

3
party’s failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. See, (Doc. No.

73 at 5). Because no objection has been filed in this case, Chappell has waived his

right to review and appeal. Moreover, the Courts finds the analysis thoroughly

recounted the facts and properly applied the governing law in reaching the

recommendation to grant Defendants’ request for summary judgment. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Grand’s R&R

and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 31, 2017 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on July 31, 2017.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

4