Lee v. Li

Filing 51

ORDER (1) Adopting 46 Report and Recommendation, (2) Overruling 49 Objections to 46 Report and Recommendation, and (3) Granting Defendant's 32 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

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

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

v.
SAI LI, MD,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #46),
(2) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #49), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF #32)
In this action, Plaintiff Robert Lee (“Lee”) alleges, among other things, that
while he was a patient at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Defendant Dr. Sai Li
(“Dr. Li”), a psychiatrist, forced him to take medication that caused certain side
effects. (See Am. Compl. ECF #5.) Dr. Li moved for judgment on the pleadings
on July 16, 2015 (the “Motion”). (See ECF #32.) The assigned Magistrate Judge
issued a report and recommendation on March 3, 2016, in which he recommended
that the Court grant the Motion (the “R&R”). (See ECF #46.)
On March 23, 2016, Lee filed a motion with the Court asking for to extend
the time to file objections to the R&R (the “Motion to Extend Time”). (See ECF
#48.) The Court granted the Motion to Extend Time and instructed Lee to file his
objections to the R&R by no later than April 15, 2016. (See ECF #49 at 2, Pg. ID
1 

350.) The Court further instructed Lee that his objections needed to specifically
respond to the portions of the R&R to which he objected, and that the failure to file
such specific objections would result in a waiver of both his right to object and to
appeal this Court’s ruling:
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 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.
(Id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 350-51; emphasis in original.)
Lee filed his objections on April 14, 2016, in a filing Lee titled “Count I
$200,000/Motion for R&R” (the “Objections”). (See ECF #50.) The Court has
reviewed Lee’s filing and cannot discern any specific objections to the R&R. Lee
does ask for additional time to respond to the R&R, but Lee does not explain why
the extra time the Court has already provided is not sufficient, nor why he needs
more time to respond to the R&R. Lee also appears to object to the fact that he
2 

was not allowed to conduct discovery, but the Court does not believe discovery is
warranted. Finally, the Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it well-reasoned and
well-supported.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lee’s Objections to the
R&R (ECF #49) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
R&R (ECF #46) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Dr. Li’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF #32) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the
R&R, and Lee’s claims against Dr. Li are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 14, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on April 14, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

1

Lee has also filed a document with the Court titled “Motion to Plead.” (See ECF
#45.) To the extent the “Motion to Plead” requests any relief, the Court DENIES
the motion as moot.
3