Hanserd v. Souder

Filing 28

ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's 27 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 24 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition, and (3) Granting Defendant's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARCUS HANSERD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-13201
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
N. SOUDER,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF #27) TO
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2)
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION, AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #24)
In this action, Plaintiff Marcus Hanserd (“Hanserd”) alleges that Defendant
Natalie Souder (“Souder”) violated his First Amendment rights. After Souder
moved for summary judgment, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommends that the Court grant summary judgment
in favor of Souder (the “R&R”). (See ECF #24.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge informed parties that if they wanted to seek review of her
recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within
fourteen days. (See id. at 10-11, Pg. ID 147-48.)
On March 2, 2017, Hanserd filed timely objections to the R&R (the
“Objections”). (See ECF #27). The Objections, however, only quote portions of the

R&R and do not make any arguments about why the Magistrate Judge erred. (See
id. at 1-2, Pg. ID 152-153.) “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). See also Miller v.
Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate's
report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the
requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear enough to
discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious”).1 Accordingly, it is
HEREBY ORDERED the Objections (ECF #27) are OVERRULED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended
disposition in the R&R is ADOPTED and Souder’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF #24) is GRANTED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 27, 2017

1

See also Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed. App’x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009) (“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”).

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on March 27, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]