Turner v. Callington et al

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING Objections, Adopting 24 Report and Recommendation; DENYING 16 Motion filed by Marita Turner, and GRANTING without prejudice 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by V Davis, D Callington Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

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 OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) in the above-captioned matter, recommending that the court:
grant Defendants Danitra Callington and Voncha Davis’s motion to dismiss and deny
Plaintiff Marita Turner’s motion for relief. Magistrate Judge Michelson also stated that
“Plaintiff should move to amend her complaint to replead her Eighth Amendment
contamination-of-food claim, if she can, 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. # 24, Pg. ID 119.)
On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief, which the court will liberally
construe as objections to the R&R. Plaintiff’s objections, however, are
incomprehensible and do not specifically challenge any portion of the R&R as 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires. See also Zimmerman v. Cason, No. 07-1133, 2009 WL 3878523,
at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2009) (requiring “specific objections to the magistrate’s report”
and noting that the “filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the

requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”
(citations omitted)). Moreover, the court has read the R&R and finds that it is correct.
Specifically, the court has reviewed the thorough analysis of the Magistrate Judge on
each of Plaintiff’s claims, and the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning
and result as to each claim. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections [Dkt. # 30] are OVERRULED, and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. # 24] is ADOPTED IN FULL
AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Callington and Davis’s motion to
dismiss [Dkt. # 13] is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff’s motion for relief
[Dkt. # 16] is DENIED. Plaintiff may 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.

S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 18, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, April 18, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]