-JGS Timmon v. Robinson, No. 1:2010cv00823 - Document 41 (W.D. Mich. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 39 ; denying plaintiff's motions for summary judgment 22 23 , and granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's federal claim. Plaintiffs remaining state law claim is DISMISSED, as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTINE TIMMON, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:10-cv-823 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL A LYNNE ROBINSON, Defendant. / MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On August 17, 2011, Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a Report and Recommendation ( R&R ) recommending that Plaintiff Christine Timmon s motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 22, 23) be denied, that Defendant A Lynne Robinson s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 25) be granted with respect to Plaintiff s federal claim, and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state law claim. (Dkt. No. 39.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff s objection to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 40.) This Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of an R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, a general objection to a magistrate s report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. 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). The Court may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge s findings or recommendations. Id. Plaintiff raises no substantive objection or argument of any kind in her objection. Plaintiff merely issues vague and unsupported allegations of judicial and civic corruption in the state of Michigan which are in no way responsive to the R&R. Indeed, Plaintiff admits that [she] did not bother [her]self with reading all of the court s fallacies . . . . (Dkt. No. 40 at 2.) Thus, the Court must examine the R&R without reference to Plaintiff s objection. The Court has reviewed this matter and concludes that the R&R correctly analyzes the issues and makes a sound recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the August 17, 2011, R&R (Dkt. No. 39) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff s motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 22, 23) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff s federal claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff s remaining state law claim is DISMISSED, as the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Dated: August 31, 2011 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.