Lee v. Li

Filing 20

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 19 MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to the Magistrate Judge's 18 Report and Recommendation. (Objections to Report & Recommendation due by 12/3/2014.) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT LEE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-11722
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
SAI LI, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #19)
On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Lee (“Lee”) filed a Complaint against
Defendant Dr. Sai Li, a psychiatrist at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. (See
Complaint, ECF #1.) The Court thereafter referred this action to the Magistrate
Judge for all pretrial proceedings. (See ECF #3.)
Lee then filed a First Amended Complaint in which he named Defendant Eli
Lilly Corporate Center (“Eli Lilly”) as an additional Defendant.

(See First

Amended Compl., ECF #5.) Lee appears to accuse Eli Lilly of harassment, and he
claims that Eli Lilly failed to provide him a free voucher for the prescription
medication Cialis. (See id.)
On October 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss Lee’s claims against Eli
1 

Lilly. (See the “R&R,” ECF #18.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that “Mr. Lee
has not stated any plausible claim against Eli Lilly, and his complaint as to Eli
Lilly lacks any arguable basis in law or fact.” (Id. at 5, Pg. ID 138.) The
Magistrate Judge then informed Lee that “[a]ny objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days…” (Id.) The Magistrate
Judge told Lee that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
any further right of appeal,” and that the “[f]iling of objections which raise some
issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a
party might have to this Report and Recommendation.” (Id.)
Lee has now filed a motion to extend the time by which he must file his
objections to the R&R. (See ECF #19.) It appears that Lee is claiming that he
needs additional time because he “became ill” and because he may be awaiting
additional information he has requested via the Freedom of Information Act. (See
id. at 1-2, Pg. ID 140-141.)
Having reviewed Lee’s motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Lee’s
request for additional time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Lee’s objections must be filed with
the Court no later than December 3, 2014. To be clear, the Clerk of the Court
must receive Lee’s objections no later than December 3, 2014. Lee must therefore
2 

submit and/or mail to the Court any objections sufficiently in advance to ensure
that the Court receives the objections no later than December 3, 2014.
Each of Lee’s objections must specifically and precisely identify the
provision of the R&R to which the objection pertains. Lee is cautioned that the
failure to lodge specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R constitutes a
waiver of both his right to object and his right to appeal. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). As this Court has previously held, “[a]n ‘objection’ that does
nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or
simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that
term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich.
2004). This finding is fully consistent with precedent from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court has held that “the filing of vague,
general, or conclsuory objections does not meet the requirement of specific
objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Zimmerman v.
Cason, 354 Fed. App’x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Indeed, “[a] general objection to
the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would 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
duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them,
and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Id. (quoting Howard v.
3 

Sec’y of Health and Human Serv., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2001)). Consistent
with this precedent, the Court will not consider the merits of any vague, general, or
conclusory objections to the R&R.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 12, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on November 12, 2014, by electronic means
and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4