UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLEN MAYBIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13755

RAYMOND BOOKER, et al., HONORABLE AVERN COHN

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 13)

AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT RAYMOND BOOKER’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 8)

I.

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of

the Michigan Department of Corrections, asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for

violation of constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The

matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Defendant

Raymond Booker filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the complaint fails to state a

claim against him. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(MJRR) recommending that the motion be granted essentially because the allegations

of the complaint fail to allege personal involvement by Booker in any of the events which

form the basis for the complaint. Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections to the MJRR. 

For the reasons that follow, the objections will be overruled, the MJRR will be adopted,

and Booker’s motion to dismiss will be granted. 
2

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).

A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously

presented, is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the

magistrate judge. An "objection" that does nothing more than state a disagreement with

a magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been

presented before, is not an objection as that term is used in this context. Howard v.

Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 991) ("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.").

III.

Plaintiff’s objections essentially repeat the arguments considered and rejected by

the magistrate judge inasmuch as plaintiff contends that he has alleged personal

involvement by Booker. However, the magistrate judge carefully reviewed plaintiff’s

complaint and concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim against Booker. Plaintiff’s

objections fail to convince the Court that the magistrate judge erred.
3

IV.

Accordingly, the MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the

Court. Booker’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Booker are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED. 

 S/Avern Cohn 

Dated: August 3, 2010 AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Glenn Maybin, 

178072, Thumb Correctional Facility, 3225 John Conley Drive, Lapeer, MI 48446 and

the attorneys of record on this date, August 3, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160