1

 Plaintiff White was already dismissed from this action. (Dkt. 83).

2

 The motion to change venue was denied on May 27, 2010. (Dkt. 77).

Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

1 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK WHITE, et al., Case No. 09-13470

Plaintiffs, Arthur J. Tarnow

vs. United States District Judge

SAGINAW COUNTY JAIL, Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 30)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This consolidated prisoner civil rights action involves three plaintiffs, Mark

White,1

 Christopher Sperry, and Roger Kelly. District Judge Arthur Tarnow

referred this matter, as consolidated, to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. 

(Dkt. 17). 

Defendant filed a motion for change of venue2

 and a motion to dismiss on

January 5, 2010. (Dkt. 29, 30). On January 15, 2010, the Court ordered plaintiffs

to file written responses by March 1, 2010. (Dkt. 39). In that Order, the Court

warned that “[f]ailure to file a response may result in sanctions, including
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

2 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

granting all or part of the relief requested by the moving party.” (Dkt. 39)

(emphasis in original). Plaintiff Sperry did not file a timely response to

defendant’s pending motion to dismiss. On June 7, 2010, plaintiff Kelly filed a

response to the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 79).

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that

plaintiff Sperry’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to

prosecute and that plaintiff Kelly’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

II. CHRISTOPHER SPERRY

“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with

prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.” Link v.

Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). “The power to invoke this sanction is

necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and

to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link, 370 U.S. at

629-630. “[D]istrict courts possess broad discretion to sanction parties for failing

to comply with procedural requirements.” Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac,

Oldsmobile, Buick, and GMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 991 (6th Cir. 1999),

citing, Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 453 (6th Cir.1991). Further, “a district

court can dismiss an action for noncompliance with a local rule ... if the behavior

of the noncomplying party rises to the level of a failure to prosecute under Rule
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

3 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Tetro, 173 F.3d at 992. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 governs dismissals. As to involuntary

dismissals, it provides:

If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these

rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss

the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal

order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision

(b) and any dismissal not under this rule - except one for

lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a

party under Rule 19 - operates as an adjudication on the

merits.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). “Neither the permissive language of [Rule 41(b)] – which

merely authorizes a motion by the defendant – nor its policy requires us to

conclude that it was the purpose of the Rule to abrogate the power of courts, acting

on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant

because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v.

Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). “The authority of a federal trial court to

dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot

seriously be doubted.” Link, 370 U.S. at 629; see also Carter v. City of Memphis,

Tenn., 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980) (“It is clear that the district court does

have the power under [Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)] to enter a sua sponte order of

dismissal.”) (citing Link). Moreover, “district courts possess broad discretion to

sanction parties for failing to comply with procedural requirements.” Tetro v.
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

4 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and GMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988,

991 (6th Cir. 1999), citing, Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 453 (6th Cir. 1991). 

And, “a district court can dismiss an action for noncompliance with a local rule

only if the behavior of the noncomplying party rises to the level of a failure to

prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Tetro, 173

F.3d at 992.

The Sixth Circuit considers “four factors in reviewing the decision of a

district court to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute:

(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad

faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced

by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the

dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate

could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic

sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal

was ordered.

Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2005), citing, Knoll v.

American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). In this case, the

Court warned plaintiff that his case would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed

to file a response to the motion to dismiss or to file a response to the order to show

cause. (Dkt. 16, 18). Thus, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. With respect

to the first factor, just as in White v. Bouchard, 2008 WL 2216281, *5 (E.D. Mich.

2008), “it is not clear whether plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is due to willfulness,

bad faith or fault.” Id. Regardless, “defendant[] cannot be expected to defend an
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

5 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

action,” that plaintiff has “apparently abandoned, not to mention the investment of

time and resources expended to defend this case.” Id. Thus, the first and third

factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Finally, given plaintiff’s failure to file

responses as ordered, the undersigned sees no utility in considering or imposing

lesser sanctions. Thus, none of the factors weigh against dismissal for failure to

prosecute.

It is true that “district courts should be especially hesitant to dismiss for

procedural deficiencies where, as here, the failure is by a pro se litigant.” White, at

*8, quoting, Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996). However, “dismissal

is appropriate when a pro se litigant has engaged in a clear pattern of delay.” 

Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991). Indeed, a sua sponte dismissal

may be justified by a plaintiff’s “apparent abandonment of [a] case.” White, at *5,

citing, Washington v. Walker, 734 F.2d 1237, 1240 (7th Cir. 1984). Here, plaintiff

failed to comply with orders of the court. Under the circumstances, in the view of

the undersigned, dismissal is appropriate.

III. ROGER KELLY

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

In his complaint, plaintiff asserts a variety of constitutional violations. (Case

No. 09-14361, Dkt. 1). He claims that he was forced to live in an area of the jail

that was flooded with sewer water. He also claims that he was assaulted by
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

6 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

another inmate and jail personnel refused to file charges. Plaintiff claims that other

prisoners threw buckets of urine and feces tainted water in his cell and that this

behavior was encouraged by the guards. Plaintiff was also denied the ability to file

assault charges against the other inmates. Plaintiff claims that the Jail does not

supervise inmates directly and violent behavior of inmates who are put “in charge”

of other inmates is rewarded by Jail personnel.

Plaintiff asserts that the Jail provides computer access to the women in their

dorm, but regular access is denied to the men. He claims that the Jail provided no

religious programs to the men, but such services are provided to the women

inmates. He alleges inadequate access to envelopes, paper, and pens to indigent

inmates. Plaintiff claims that the Jail allows only collect calls and he cannot

contact his lawyer because of this policy. He claims that the Jail has no effective

grievance system and no secure mail system. Plaintiff alleges that the Jail does not

adequately screen inmates for infectious diseases, does not provide adequate

cleaning supplies, does not provide adequate medical care, does not provide

adequate outdoor recreation, and has inadequate food service. Id.

B. Motion to Dismiss and Response

Defendant moves to dismiss on several grounds. (Dkt. 30). First, defendant

asserts that plaintiff failed to sue an entity that is capable of being sued. Second,

defendant argues that plaintiff failed to identify a municipal policy or custom and
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

7 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

has thus, failed to state a claim. And third, defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies in according with the Prison Litigation Reform

Act (PLRA). Defendant submitted the affidavit of Paula Lounsbury, a Lieutenant

with the Saginaw County Sheriff’s Department who serves as the Jail Division

Commander/Jail Administrator for the Saginaw County Jail. (Dkt. 30-5). She

attests that each of the plaintiffs was given a copy of the inmate guide, which

contains the Jail’s grievance procedure. She also attests that, in accordance with

her duties, she maintains records and logs of all processed grievances that have

been appealed through all steps of the grievance procedure. According to her

affidavit, Lt. Lounsbury, after personally making an inquiry, found no evidence of

any grievance being filed or appeal through all steps of the grievance procedure by

plaintiff Kelly regarding the complaints in his lawsuit. (Dkt. 30-5, p. 3). 

In response, plaintiff says he has the legal knowledge to amend to name the

proper defendants, but no paper or postage. (Dkt. 79). As far as the custom or

policy issue, plaintiff asserts that Saginaw County Jail employees have a custom

and practice, endorsed by the County, of refusing to answer grievances. Plaintiff

“swear[s] the jail employees have throw away numerous grievances.” (Dkt. 79, p.

2) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff also alleges that the jail has a custom or habit of

preventing exhaustion. Plaintiff also repeats many of the allegations contained in

his complaint, and swears to them under penalty of perjury. (Dkt. 79, p. 8). 
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

8 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

C. Saginaw County Jail Grievance Procedure

Defendant submitted the Jail’s grievance procedure, which states that a

corrections officer must be the first person contacted with any complaint or

grievances and the officer will attempt to resolve all complaints and grievances

from an inmate. The inmate must file the complaint or grievance within seven

days of the event being complained about. (Dkt. 30-3, p. 16). If the grievance

cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the inmate, the inmate will be advised to

put the complaint in writing and forward it to the jail shift commander. If the shift

commander cannot resolve the grievance, the inmate will be advised to forward the

complaint to the jail administrator. The jail administrator will review all pertinent

information regarding the matter and make a final determination. Id. The

grievance must state the reason for the grievance, the original officer contacted

regarding the grievance, the original shift commander involved in the grievance,

the date and time, and why the problem was not or could not be resolved. Id. 

D. Standard of Review

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Rule 12(d) provides that, if the moving party presents and the Court

relies on matters outside the pleadings, “the motion [under Rule 12(b)(6)] must be

treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56. All

parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

9 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

pertinent to the motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Thus, the plain language of the rule

requires that if the motion relies on outside materials that the Court considers, then

the motion “must” be converted into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to

Rule 56. See Song v. City of Elyria, Ohio, 985 F.2d 840, 842 (6th Cir. 1993). 

With respect to defendant’s claim that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies, the undersigned has considered materials outside the pleadings and

therefore, defendant’s motion, in this respect, will be treated as one for summary

judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals that there are no

genuine issues as to any material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Kocak v. Comty. Health Partners

of Ohio, Inc., 400 F.3d 466, 468 (6th Cir. 2005); Thomas v. City of Chattanooga,

398 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir. 2005). The standard for determining whether summary

judgment is appropriate is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement

to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must

prevail as a matter of law.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. McGowan, 421 F.3d

433, 436 (6th Cir. 2005), quoting, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

251-52 (1986); see also Tucker v. Union of Needletrades Indus. & Textile

Employees, 407 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2005). The court must consider all

pleadings, depositions, affidavits, and admissions on file, and draw all justifiable
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

10 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. See Matsushita Elec. Indus.

Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Twin City Fire Ins. Co.

v. Adkins, 400 F.3d 293, 296 (6th Cir. 2005).

A prisoner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is an affirmative

defense for which Defendants have the burden to plead and prove. Jones v. Bock,

549 U.S. 199 (2007). A moving party without the burden of proof needs only

show that the opponent cannot sustain his burden at trial. See Morris v. Oldham

County Fiscal Court, 201 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Minadeo v. ICI

Paints, 398 F.3d 751, 761 (6th Cir. 2005). A moving party with the burden of

proof faces a “substantially higher hurdle.” Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 561 (6th

Cir. 2002); Cockrel v. Shelby County Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1056 (6th Cir.

2001). “Where the moving party has the burden-the plaintiff on a claim for relief

or the defendant on an affirmative defense-his showing must be sufficient for the

court to hold that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving

party.” Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986), quoting, W.

Schwarzer, Summary Judgment Under the Federal Rules: Defining Genuine Issues

of Material Fact, 99 F.R.D. 465, 487-88 (1984). The United States Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit repeatedly has emphasized that the party with the

burden of proof “must show the record contains evidence satisfying the burden of

persuasion and that the evidence is so powerful that no reasonable jury would be
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

11 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

free to disbelieve it.” Arnett, 281 F.3d at 561, quoting, 11 Moore’s Federal

Practice § 56.13[1], at 56-138 (3d ed. 2000). Accordingly, a summary judgment in

favor of the party with the burden of persuasion “is inappropriate when the

evidence is susceptible of different interpretations or inferences by the trier of

fact.” Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553 (1999).

Rule 56 limits the materials the Court may consider in deciding a motion

under the rule: “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits.” Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 478 (6th

Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Moreover, affidavits must meet certain requirements:

A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on

personal knowledge, set out facts that would be

admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is

competent to testify on the matters stated. If a paper or

part of a paper is referred to in an affidavit, a sworn or

certified copy must be attached to or served with the

affidavit. The court may permit an affidavit to be

supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to

interrogatories, or additional affidavits.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(1). In accordance with Rule 56(e), the Sixth Circuit has held

“that documents submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment must

satisfy the requirements of Rule 56(e); otherwise, they must be disregarded.”

Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697, 699 (6th Cir. 1993). Thus, in resolving a Rule 56

motion, the Court should not consider unsworn or uncertified documents, Id.,

unsworn statements, Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, Inc., 942 F.2d 962, 968-969
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

12 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

(6th Cir. 1991), inadmissible expert testimony, North American Specialty Ins. Co.

v. Myers, 111 F.3d 1273, 1280 (6th Cir. 1997), or hearsay evidence, Hartsel v.

Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 1996); Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222,

225-226 (6th Cir. 1994). Thus, “[a] party opposing a motion for summary

judgment cannot use hearsay or other inadmissible evidence to create a genuine

issue of material fact.” Id., quoting, Sperle v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 297

F.3d 483, 495 (6th Cir. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

E. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007), the United States

Supreme Court held that “exhaustion is an affirmative defense, and prisoners are

not required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.” 

Id. at 923. The Court defined the level of detail necessary to exhaust as simply

compliance with the administrative grievance process. Id. Moreover, the burden

rests on the defendant to show that a plaintiff failed to exhaust when asserting

exhaustion as an affirmative defense. Id. Accordingly, exhaustion is satisfied if

plaintiff complied with the applicable MDOC grievance procedure and defendants

bear the burden of showing otherwise. Kramer v. Wilkinson, 226 Fed.Appx. 461,

462 (6th Cir. 2007) (A prisoner-plaintiff “does not bear the burden of specially

pleading and proving exhaustion; rather, this affirmative defense may serve as a

basis for dismissal only if raised and proven by the defendants.”).
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

13 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

The Supreme Court defines proper exhaustion under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) as

“using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the

agency addresses the issues on the merits).” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126

S.Ct. 2378, 2385, quoting, Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir.

2002) (emphasis in original). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an

agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative

system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the

course of its proceedings.” Id. at 2386. The Supreme Court also observed that

“[t]he PLRA attempts to eliminate unwarranted federal-court interference with the

administration of prisons, and thus seeks to ‘afford corrections officials time and

opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a

federal case.’” Id. at 2387, quoting, Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525 (2002)

(alteration omitted). Exhaustion serves a dual purpose: it gives prisoners “an

effective incentive to make full use of the prison grievance process and accordingly

provides prisons with a fair opportunity to correct their own errors.” Id. at

2387-88. Additionally, the exhaustion requirement “has the potential to reduce the

number of inmate suits, and also to improve the quality of suits that are filed by

producing a useful administrative record.” Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 915-16.

Before Jones invalidated the additional exhaustion procedures placed on

prisoner civil rights suits by the Sixth Circuit, a prisoner was required to “file a
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

14 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

grievance against the person he ultimately seeks to sue,” and exhaust the claim as

to each defendant associated with the claim. Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 505 (6th

Cir. 2001). The critical holding in Jones was that the PLRA does not impose

additional exhaustion procedures or requirements outside the prison’s grievance

procedures. As observed in Jones, the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert

prison officials of a particular problem. Jones, 127 S.Ct. at 923; see also Bell v.

Konteh, 450 F.3d 651, 651 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[I]t is sufficient for a court to find that

a prisoner’s [grievance] gave prison officials fair notice of the alleged mistreatment

or misconduct that forms the basis of the constitutional or statutory claim made

against a defendant in a prisoner’s complaint.”).

Under some limited circumstances, an inmate may be excused from

completing the applicable grievance process. Baker v. Andes, 2005 WL 1140725

(E.D. Ky. 2005), citing, Giano v. Goord, 380 F.3d 670, *677 (2d Cir. 2004)

(“[I]nstructions by prison officials that are at odds with the wording of [exhaustion

of administrative remedies regulations] might ‘render’ [ ] the formal grievance

procedure unavailable [to the plaintiff] within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e.”); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that “a

remedy that prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an ‘available’

remedy under § 1997e(a)”). “Acts of prison officials which thwart a prison

inmate’s efforts to pursue his grievance remedies and prevent him from pursuing
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

15 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

his remedies or obtaining a response thereto can be viewed as excusing the lack of

complete exhaustion by a prison inmate.” Smith v. Baugh, 2006 WL 2771039, *5

(M.D. Tenn. 2006), citing, Owens v. Keeling, 2006 WL 2471963 (6th Cir. 2006);

Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 2004).

In this case, defendant offers admissible evidence via affidavit that plaintiff

did not file any grievances relating to any of the allegations in his complaint. (Dkt.

30-5). In response, while plaintiff claims in his sworn response that he witnessed

grievances being thrown away, he does not claim in his sworn response that the

grievances being thrown away were his grievances relating to the facts set forth in

his complaint. Even if the grievances he claims were thrown away are his

grievances relating to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff offers no details

about the claims allegedly grieved and the persons against whom he filed the

grievances that he alleges were “thrown away.” Plaintiff cannot create a genuine

issue of material fact through bare allegations, unsupported by any admissible

evidence. Lowe v. Clift, 2007 WL 2112672, *11 (E.D. Tenn. 2007) (“Plaintiff’s

reliance on bare allegations is not sufficient to create an issue of material fact or

otherwise defeat a summary judgment motion.”). In light of the evidence

presented by defendant, who bears the burden of proof, and the lack of evidence

presented by plaintiff, the undersigned suggests that the present circumstances are

not such that “the evidence is susceptible of different interpretations or inferences
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

16 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

by the trier of fact,” which would preclude summary judgment in favor of the party

bearing the burden of proof. Hunt, 526 U.S. at 553. Rather, the record evidence is

susceptible to only one interpretation – that plaintiff did not exhaust his

administrative remedies with respect any of the events described in his complaint.

Given the foregoing conclusions, the remainder of defendant’s arguments

regarding plaintiff’s complaint need not be addressed further.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that

plaintiff Sperry’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to

prosecute and that plaintiff Kelly’s complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some

issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health

and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

17 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection

No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may

rule without awaiting the response.

s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Date: August 24, 2010 Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge
Report and Recommendation

Motion to Dismiss

18 White v. Saginaw Co. Jail; Case No. 09-13470

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 24, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to the following: Christina M. Grossi and Lawrence W. Smith, Jr., and

I certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the

following non-ECF participant(s): Mark White, ID# 228524, MACOMB

REGIONAL FACILITY, 34625 26 Mile Road, New Haven, MI 48048, Roger

Kelly, ID# 748808, SAGINAW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 9625 Pierce Road,

Freeland, MI 48623, and Christopher Sperry, ID #686220, BELLAMY CREEK

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 1727 West Bluewater Highway, Ionia, MI 48846.

s/Darlene Chubb 

Judicial Assistant

(810) 341-7850

darlene_chubb@mied.uscourts.gov