UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARNEST TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-12756

Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

DR. MALATINSKY, STEVEN 

GIDEL, R POMALOY,

ESANTA CRUZ, JOHN UPP,

MARIO BAYONETO

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, brought this pro se

suit against the defendants alleging that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of his rights under the

United States Constitution through their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The

matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan for general case management. On June

28, 2010, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to which the plaintiff responded on

August 30, 2010. The defendants filed a reply, and on September 30, 2010, Magistrate Judge

Virginia M. Morgan issued a Report and Recommendation to grant the defendants’ motion for

summary judgment. The plaintiff did not submit any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation but did file a sur-reply to the defendants’ reply. In his terse sur-reply, the

plaintiff insists that he is challenging the record as well as his treatment, and a jury trial is required

to resolve this dispute. 

Generally, objections to a report and recommendation are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. §
-2-

636(b)(1). However, the Sixth Circuit has stated that “[o]verly general objections do not satisfy the

objection requirement.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006). “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). “‘[O]bjections disput[ing] the

correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to

be] in error’ are too general.” Spencer, 449 F.3d at 725 (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380).

“[T]he failure to file specific objections to a magistrate’s report constitutes a waiver of those

objections.” Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004). The Court must conclude in

this case that the plaintiff has waived his right to object to the substance of the report, and this Court

need not conduct a de novo review of the issues thoroughly addressed by the magistrate judge. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (holding that the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motion); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n

of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Moreover, after examining the record,

the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the defendants’ motions should be granted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt

# 33] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. #24] is

GRANTED. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: November 4, 2010
-3-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on November 4, 2010.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL