Zindler v. Rogers et al

Filing 14

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 , and dismissing plaintiff's complaint ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RICHARD DEAN ZINDLER, Plaintiff, File No. 1:11-CV-770 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL DAWN ROGERS, et al., Defendants. / ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On August 23, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this pro se civil action, in which Plaintiff Richard Dean Zindler is proceeding in forma pauperis, be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Dkt. No. 12, R&R.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on September 12, 2011. (Dkt. No. 13, Obj.) This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[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). Plaintiff has not specifically objected to any portion of the R&R. Plaintiff merely requests leave to amend, not to add or remove anything, but simply to highlight corresponding points. (Dkt. No. 13.) The Court may not permit Plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat dismissal under § 1915(e)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (providing that a district court “shall dismiss the case”) (emphasis added); Baxter v. Rose, 305 F.3d 486, 488-89 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Under the Prison Litigation [Reform] Act, courts have no discretion in permitting a plaintiff to amend a complaint to avoid a sua sponte dismissal.”) (citing McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997)); Moniz v. Hines, 92 F. App’x 208, 212 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court may not permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).”). The Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 13) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 23, 2011, R&R (Dkt. No. 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Dated: September 15, 2011 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?