1

This case was originally before another district judge. It was later reassigned to

the undersigned. (Doc. 55). While the report and recommendation at page 2 states

that the undersigned issued orders regarding plaintiff’s claims, it was the original district

judge who issued those orders, not the undersigned.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDERSON LEE FERNANDERS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-12933

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE AVERN COHN

COMMUNITY HEALTH/HAWTHORNE

CENTER,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER 

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 88)

AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 85)

AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 74)

AND

DISMISSING CASE

I.

This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff Anderson Lee Fernanders,

proceeding pro se, asserted several claims against his former employer, the Michigan

Department of Community Health/Hawthorne Center. The matter was referred to a

magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 3). Following dispositive motions by

defendant, only plaintiff’s claim for race discrimination under Title VII remained. (See

Docs. 15, 23, 31,46 ).1

 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s

2:09-cv-12933-AC-RSW Doc # 91 Filed 08/14/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1028
2

Plaintiff also filed a motion for injunctive relief. That motion is the subject of a

separate order.

3

At best as can be gleaned from plaintiff’s objections, he is raising the same

arguments considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. 

2

sole claim. (Doc. 74).2

 The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation

(MJRR), recommending that the motion be granted. (Doc. 85). Before the Court are

plaintiff’s objections to the MJRR. (Doc. 88). For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s

objections will be overruled, the MJRR will be adopted, defendant’s motion for summary

judgment will be granted, and the case will be dismissed.

II.

A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate” judge. Id. The requirement of de novo

review “is a statutory recognition that Article III of the United States Constitution

mandates that the judicial power of the United States be vested in judges with life

tenure.” United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985). Accordingly,

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to “insure[] that the district judge would

be the final arbiter” of a matter referred to a magistrate judge. Flournoy v. Marshall, 842

F.2d 875, 878 (6th Cir. 1987). 

III.

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s objections. Nothing in the objections convinces

the Court that the magistrate judge erred in his recommendation.3

 To the contrary, the

magistrate judge carefully explained why plaintiff has not made out an actionable claim

2:09-cv-12933-AC-RSW Doc # 91 Filed 08/14/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1029
3

against defendant for race discrimination. The record does not contain any admissible

evidence showing that plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated nonprotected persons because of his race or that defendant’s reason for terminating his

employment–violation of defendant’s time and attendance policy–was a pretext for race

discrimination.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge in the MJRR are ADOPTED as the findings and

conclusions of the Court. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 14, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, August 14, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-12933-AC-RSW Doc # 91 Filed 08/14/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1030