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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?