Searcy et al v. Macomb County Jail et al

Filing 246

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's February 12, 2014 232 Report and Recommendation granting 209 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAVELLE SEARCY (#195469),
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:10-CV-11242
Honorable Denise Page Hood

MACOMB COUNTY AND
ARAMARK CORPORATION,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FEBRUARY 12, 2014,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#232]
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives’s
Report and Recommendation on Defendant Aramark Corporation’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Docket No. 232, filed February 12, 2014]. Plaintiff filed an
Objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 239, filed
April 8, 2014]. Defendant Aramark Corporation filed a Response to the Objection
[Docket No. 240, filed April 22, 2014]. Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Response
[Docket No. 241, filed May 7, 2014]. For the reasons stated below, the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Defendant Aramark Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No.
209, filed April 2, 2013] is GRANTED.

I.

BACKGROUND
The Magistrate Judge describes the background of this case in detail.

Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
[Docket No. 239, filed April 8, 2014], but his objections have no merit and are
addressed by the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 232, filed February
12, 2014]. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact in their
entirety.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Id. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be timely and specific.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d); United States v. Walters,
638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981) (“The filing of objections provides the district
court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to
correct any errors immediately.”)
“[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the
district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but

2

failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” Smith
v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). “An
‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s
suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is”
insufficient. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A
party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal, see
Smith, 829 F.2d at 1373, and relieves the Court from its duty to review the matter
independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation [Docket No. 239, filed April 8, 2014]. Defendant Aramark
Corporation filed a Response to the Objection [Docket No. 240, filed April 22,
2014]. Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Response [Docket No. 241, filed May 7,
2014].

The objections have no merit and are adequately addressed by the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Aramark Corporation’s Motion for

Summary Judgment [Docket No. 209, filed April 2, 2013] is GRANTED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Aramark Corporation is
dismissed from this case.
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Paul J.
Komives to make a recommendation as to the remaining Defendant, Macomb
County within 30 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2014

s/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on September 30, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4