UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

FRED REEVES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-13776

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, 

ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, 

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On September 9, 2010, Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) in the above-captioned matter, recommending that the court

grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed his “Plaintiff’s

Affidavit/Objections to Report and Recommendation to Grant Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment” on September 24, 2010, and Defendant filed a response on

October 6, 2010. The court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the R&R in full, and

grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

I. STANDARD

The filing of timely objections requires the court to “make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations

to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord United States v. Raddatz,

447 U.S. 667, 673-82 (1980); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

This de novo review, in turn, requires this court to re-examine all of the relevant

evidence previously reviewed by the magistrate to determine whether the
2

recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or modified in whole or in part. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may “receive further evidence” if desired. Id.

A party who files timely objections to a magistrate’s report in order to preserve

the right to appeal must be mindful of the purpose of such objections: to provide the

district court “with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and

to correct any errors immediately.” Walters, 638 F.2d at 949-50. The Supreme Court

upheld this rule in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), a habeas corpus case. The

Supreme Court noted that “[t]he filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the

district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart

of the parties’ dispute.” 474 U.S. at 147 (footnote omitted).

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. See, e.g., Slater v.

Potter, 28 F. App’x 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory

objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a

complete failure to object.”); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d

505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991) (“It is arguable in this case that Howard’s counsel did not file

objections at all. . . . [I]t is hard to see how a district court reading [the ‘objections’]

would know what Howard thought the magistrate had done wrong.”). “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). 
3

Further, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the

district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing

to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

II. DISCUSSION

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Affidavit/Objections” to the R&R, and cannot

discern a single, reasoned “objection” as that term is used in 28 U.S.C. § 636. Rather,

after failing to file a response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion, in the pending

document Plaintiff cites a Michigan Department of Corrections Operating Procedure for

the first time, summarizes the results of several past medical examinations, and then

concludes: 

All plaintiffs [sic] doctors have told him that had the MRI been done

earlier plaintiffs [sic] condition could have been better controlled. Plaintiff

at this time cannot do daily chores or sit [and] stand or lay without severe

pain.

Based on plaintiffs [sic] medical files, plaintiff has demonstrated that

that [sic] defendants subjectively perceived a risk of harm and electively

disregarded it due to budget constraints.

(Pl.’s Objections 7.)

Plaintiff advances arguments, based on his summary of his medical records, a

policy of the Michigan Department of Corrections, and unsupported medical

conclusions, which should have been raised in a response to Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, and are therefore untimely. The court therefore overrules the

“objections” and grants summary judgment both because Plaintiff has failed to state a

proper objection and, relatedly, because the court need not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s
4

arguments, which would only have been cognizable in a response to Defendant’s motion.

As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Defendant met its initial burden on summary

judgment of showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to (1) the

absence of a policy, practice, or procedure of Defendant that resulted in a violation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, or (2) the absence of evidence showing that any alleged

delay in treatment resulted in a worsening of Plaintiff’s condition. The burden then

shifted to Plaintiff to demonstrate that there was a genuine issue of one of these

material facts, but Plaintiff failed to meet that burden by neglecting to file a response. 

Plaintiff’s “objections” do not direct the court’s attention to any particular part of the R&R

with which Plaintiff disagrees, but rather attempt to remedy Plaintiff’s failure to meet his

burden by alleging that a cost-control policy led to the violation of Plaintiff’s rights and by

arguing that his current doctors claim an earlier MRI could have prevented some of the

problems from which Plaintiff now suffers. 

These are not objections subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See

Slater, 28 F. App’x at 513; Howard, 932 F.2d at 508-09. In addition, the court finds the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be well-founded. In the absence of pointed and

persuasive objections to the contrary, the court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation and grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. #

60] are OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge’s September 9, 2010 “Report and

Recommendation to Grant . . . Motion for Summary Judgment” [Dkt. # 59] is ADOPTED

IN FULL AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. 
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-13776.REEVES.AdoptR&R.jmp.wpd

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgment

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56” [Dkt. # 55] is GRANTED.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 25, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on

this date, October 25, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522