Peterson v. Moore

Filing 35

OPINION & ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's Objection (Dkt. 33 ), (2) Accepting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 31 ), and (3) Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRADLEY T. PETERSON,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 15-CV-14190
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

vs.
THOMAS C. MOORE,
Defendant.
_______________________________/

OPINION & ORDER
(1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (Dkt. 33), (2) ACCEPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 31), AND (3)
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 27)
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate
Judge David R. Grand, issued on June 27, 2017 (Dkt. 31). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends granting Defendant Thomas C. Moore’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 27).
Peterson has filed an objection (Dkt. 33), to which Moore has responded (Dkt. 34).
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which a specific objection has
been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). However, “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 enable the district
court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,
380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Peterson’s objection fails to specify the portion of the R&R to which he objects. The
objection is almost entirely a summary of the background of the case. See Pl. Obj. at 1-3. After
reciting the facts, Peterson requests that his objections be heard and that the Magistrate Judge’s

1

recommendation be overruled. Id. at 4. Peterson does not specifically object to any of the
Magistrate Judge’s findings, thus prohibiting the Court from determining which issues are
dispositive and contentious.
The Court’s own review of the R&R indicates that the Magistrate Judge has reached the
proper conclusion for the proper reasons. Therefore, the R&R is accepted and adopted as the
findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, Peterson’s objection is overruled and Moore’s
motion for summary judgment is granted.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2017
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail
addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 16, 2017.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager
.

2