Turner v. Callington et al, No. 2:2013cv12744 - Document 47 (E.D. Mich. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation, DENYING 30 Motion for Relief filed by Marita Turner, GRANTING 23 Motion to Dismiss filed by Earl Fisher, 34 GRANTING Motion to Dismiss filed by Angell Oakley and DISMISSING the case in its entirety with prejudice Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARITA TURNER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 13-12744 DANITRA CALLIGNTON, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION In adopting an earlier Report and Recommendation ( R&R ), this court entered an order that conditionally granted Defendants Danitra Callington and Voncha Davis s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 13) and denied Plaintiff s motion for relief (Dkt. # 16). The court permitted Plaintiff an opportunity to move to amend her complaint by May 23, 2014, to replead her Eighth Amendment contamination-of-food claim, with allegations that explain how individual defendants were personally involved in the alleged contamination of her food or knew of it and could have prevented it. (Dkt. #33, Pg. ID 196). Plaintiff has failed to so move, and on May 21, 2014, Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris issued an R&R recommending that: 1) Defendant Earl Fisher s motion (Dkt. # 23) be GRANTED; 2) Defendant Angell Oakley s motion (Dkt. # 34) be GRANTED; 3) Plaintiff s motion for relief (Dkt. # 30) be DENIED; and that the case be dismissed in its entirety. (Dkt. # 43, Pg. ID 307.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich LR 72.1(d)(2), Plaintiff was obligated to timely object in an orderly manner (e.g., numbered objections specifically identifying the matters with which she takes issue). Plaintiff presented only a letter that includes statements such as these: Which what [sic] was stated correct? Does the Plaintiff have to add cruel and unusual punishment? * * * I am requestion [sic] ing [sic] what would like inorder [sic] for my relief to be granted. The letter concluded with the printed name, Sean Diddy Combs, and a signature that appears to be Plaintiff s. No particular objections are stated, and the court will accordingly adopt the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and order the case dismissed. 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); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949 (6th Cir. 1981). This de novo review requires this court to examine the relevant pleadings and such evidence as may have ben submitted in support of the motions to determine the outcome of the motions. A failure to file objections, or a failure to file specific objections, each constitute a waiver of any further right of appeal. Walters, 638 F.2d at 949 50; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing of objections that raise only some issues in the report and recommendation, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all 2 the objections a party might have. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991). II. DISCUSSION Each written objection presented pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) must be specific and address the proposed findings and recommendations. This court expects that each such objection will be numbered, identify a proposed finding or conclusion, and explain why and how the Magistrate Judge s analysis is incorrect. In order for this court to apply meaningful de novo review, it is insufficient for the objecting party to simply incorporate by reference earlier pleadings or reproduce an earlier unsuccessful motion for dismissal or judgment (or a response to the other party s dispositive motion). Insufficient objections to a magistrate judge s analysis will ordinarily be treated by the court as an unavailing general objection. See Howard, 932 F.2d at 508 09 ( A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate s report has the same effects as would a failure to object. The district court s attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless. The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. ); Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) ( Overly general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement. ). Here, Plaintiff has failed to present any specific objections or argument which would provide a reason to even review, let alone reject Magistrate Judge Morris s R&R. Plaintiff s rambling and unorganized presentation is equivalent to a failure to object at all. As discussed above, Plaintiff s letter merely mentions the Magistrate Judge s R&R, 3 but raises no issue which has any bearing on the Magistrate Judge s analysis in the report. By signing her letter to the court as Sean Diddy Combs, Plaintiff reveals either a frivolous attitude or a delusional mind. Neither provides a sound basis to further the litigation in this case. In presenting no objections, Plaintiff waives the right to de novo review by this court and also waives any further right of appeal. Walters, 638 F.2d at 949-50; Arn, 474 U.S. at 155; Howard, 932 F.2d at 508-09. The court nonetheless finds that the R&R is well-reasoned, thorough, and correct. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 43) is ADOPTED IN FULL and incorporated by reference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 1) Defendant Fisher s motion (Dkt. # 23) is GRANTED; 2) Defendant Oakley s motion (Dkt. # 34) is GRANTED; 3) Plaintiff s motion for relief (Dkt. # 30) is DENIED; and that this case is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice. S/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: June 18, 2014 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, June 18, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 4 S/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk (313) 234-5522 S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\13-12744.TURNER.Adopt R&Rand Dismiss.rljr.wpd 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.