UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HEATHER ROBINSON

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08-14069

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

PATRICIA CARUSO, et al.,

Defendants,

________________________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming

a violation of her rights under the United States Constitution. This matter is currently before the

Court on Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk’s Report and Recommendation (Docket #129),

wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s action be dismissed. Petitioner timely

filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

 After a thorough review of the court file (including the parties’ motions and briefs), the

Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, this

Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions of this

Court. The Court will, however, briefly addresses Plaintiff’s objections. 

Plaintiff makes six objections. First, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation that claims against defendant Campbell (the only remaining Defendant, who died

before being served) be dismissed without prejudice, among other reasons, because Plaintiff failed

to identify a substitute party. Plaintiff points to no legal error committed by the Magistrate Judge,

but asserts that she requested the Court to name the appropriate party. The Court acknowledges that

Plaintiff, as a pro se plaintiff, is entitled to more liberal pleading standards than if she was

represented by counsel. Nonetheless, no legal authority compels this Court to construct and plead

2:08-cv-14069-LPZ-MJH Doc # 131 Filed 08/08/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1160
2

Plaintiff’s case on her behalf. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); GJR Invs., Inc. v.

Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.1998). A rule to the contrary would destroy

the adversarial system upon which this great judicial institution was founded. Plaintiff’s first

objection is rejected.

Second, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), requiring

service on a defendant within 120 days to avoid dismissal of the action against that defendant. The

Magistrate Judge was not inclined to dismiss the entire case solely due to the passing of 120 days

before defendant Campbell could be served. Rather, the Magistrate Judge decided that the 120 days

had passed and Plaintiff failed to identify a party for which Plaintiff could serve. Plaintiff’s second

objection is rejected.

Third, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s statements regarding the lack of prejudice

to Plaintiff for dismissing this case due to the Court’s prior orders suggesting that Plaintiff did not

have a viable claim for deliberate indifference. Plaintiff provides no assertions or legal authority,

which this Court has reviewed in previous orders, that would support a finding that Defendants’

culpability with respect to treating Plaintiff rises above the level of negligence. Plaintiff’s third

objection is rejected. 

Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth, and sixth objections pertain to quotations of this Court’s prior orders

in this case. First, the Magistrate Judge did not incorrectly quote the Court or use such quotations

out of context. Second, to the extent that Plaintiff objects to the Court’s prior orders, the Court has

already addressed Plaintiff’s arguments in those orders, and such objections are not within the scope

of objecting to this Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s fourth, fifth, and sixth objections are

denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation [dkt 129] and enters it as the findings and conclusions of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

2:08-cv-14069-LPZ-MJH Doc # 131 Filed 08/08/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1161
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for substitution is DENIED. Judgment

shall be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 8, 2011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on August 8, 2011.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:08-cv-14069-LPZ-MJH Doc # 131 Filed 08/08/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1162