Lee v. Li

Filing 22

ORDER Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation, Overruling Plaintiff's 21 Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and Dismissing Claims Against Defendant Eli Lilly Corporate Center. Eli Lilly Corporate Center terminated. 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 ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #18),
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #21), AND DISMISSING
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT ELI LILLY CORPORATE CENTER
On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Lee (“Lee”) filed a pro se Complaint
against Defendant Dr. Sai Li, a psychiatrist at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry.
(See the “Complaint,” ECF #1.) Lee thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint in
which he named Defendant Eli Lilly Corporate Center (“Eli Lilly”) as an
additional Defendant. (See the “First Amended Complaint,” ECF #5.) In the First
Amended Complaint, Lee appears to accuse Eli Lilly of harassment, and he seems
to claim that Eli Lilly failed to provide him a free voucher for the prescription
medication Cialis. (See id.) It also appears that Lee is alleging that Eli Lilly failed
to warn him of certain side effects of Cialis. (See id.)

1 

On October 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss Lee’s claims against Eli
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.)
On November 10, 2014, Lee filed a motion to extend the time by which he
needed to file his objections to the R&R. (See ECF #19.) The Court granted Lee’s
motion on November 12, 2014. (See ECF #20.) In its Order, the Court specifically
instructed Lee that each of his objections “must specifically and precisely
identify the provision of the R&R to which the objection pertains.” (Id. at 3, Pg.
ID 154; emphasis in original.) The Court also told Lee 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
2 

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. 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.
(Id. at 3-4, Pg. ID 154-155.)
Lee filed his objections to the R&R on December 3, 2014.

(See the

“Objections,” ECF #21.) Despite the Court’s clear and unambiguous instructions,
Lee has not “specifically and precisely identif[ied] the provision[s] of the R&R to
which [his] [O]bjection[s] pertain[].” Indeed, Lee’s Objections appear to be just
the kind of “general objection[s] to the entirety of the magistrate’s report” that the
Court previously cautioned Lee would have the same effect as not filing an
objection at all. See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed. App’x 228, 230 (6th Cir.
2009).
3 

To the extent the Court can discern any specific objections to the R&R, it
appears that Lee believes that the Magistrate Judge relied “on the [initial]
complaint instead of the … amended complaint” when the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court dismiss Lee’s claims against Eli Lilly. (ECF #21 at 2,
Pg. ID 157.) However, Lee did not bring any claims against Eli Lilly in his initial
Complaint, and thus the Magistrate Judge could not have relied upon that filing
when he drafted his R&R, which focused solely on Lee’s new claims against Eli
Lilly.

Moreover, the Court has reviewed the R&R and disagrees with Lee’s

conclusion that the Magistrate Judge improperly relied upon Lee’s initial
Complaint.
Lee also appears to object to the R&R on the grounds that “if [the Court]
viewed side by side the Report and Recommendation and the defendants’ motion
to dismiss in this action it would be apparent they are nearly identical.” (Id.)
However, neither Defendant in this matter has filed a motion to dismiss – or any
other motion. Therefore, it is not possible for the two documents to be “nearly
identical.”
Finally, the Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it well-reasoned and
well-supported.

4 

Accordingly, for all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Lee’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF #21) are
OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R
(ECF #18) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Lee’s claims against Eli
Lilly are hereby DISMISSED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 29, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 29, 2014, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5