Lee v. Li

Filing 49

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying Without Prejudice in Part Plaintiff's 48 Motion to Reject Order and an Extension of Time. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

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,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REJECT ORDER AND AN
EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF #48)
On March 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a report and
recommendation in which he recommended that this Court grant Defendant Dr. Sai
Li’s (“Dr. Li”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (the “R&R”). (See ECF #46.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that
“[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen (14) days…” (Id. at 7, Pg. ID 341.) The Magistrate Judge then told the
parties 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.)

1 

Plaintiff Robert Lee (“Lee”) timely filed a response to the R&R in which he
appears to (1) raise some objections to the R&R and (2) ask the Court for
additional time to file further objections (the “Motion”). (See ECF #48.) Having
reviewed the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Lee’s request for
additional time to file objections to the R&R is GRANTED as set forth below.
The Motion in all other respects is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Lee must file all objections that he
may have to the R&R with the Court no later than April 15, 2016. To be clear, the
Clerk of the Court must receive Lee’s objections no later than April 15, 2016. Lee
must therefore submit and/or mail to the Court any objections sufficiently in
advance to ensure that the Court receives the objections no later than April 15,
2016.
Each of Lee’s objections must specifically and precisely identify the
provision of the R&R to which the objection pertains. Lee is again cautioned that
the failure to lodge specific objections to the 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). “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 not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock,
327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Indeed, “[a] general objection to the
2 

entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would failure to object.”
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed. App’x 228, 230. Finally, “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.” Id.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 24, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 24, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3