Moran #397166 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26 , 27 re 17 , 11 ; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

Moran #397166 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Doc. 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_______________________

JOHN MORAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:12-CV-614
v.
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 23, 2013, Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody issued two Report and
Recommendations (R & Rs) (docket nos. 26–27) recommending that this Court grant Defendant
Adamson’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 17), deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (docket no. 11), and dismiss the case. Plaintiff has filed a timely Objection. When a party
properly objects to any part of a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition, this Court must review the
disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After conducting a de novo review of both R & Rs,
Plaintiff’s Objection, and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court concludes that the R & Rs
should be adopted and the case dismissed.
Plaintiff makes two general objections to the R & R: (1) that he exhausted his available
administrative remedies, and (2) Defendants deprived him of his right to religious practice in
violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although Plaintiff restates the
facts and law on which he previously relied in his motion for summary judgment and response to
Defendant Adamson’s motion for summary judgment, he does not advance a specific objection to
the magistrate judge’s analysis or proposed disposition.

Dockets.Justia.com

The Sixth Circuit has held that “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) (citing Howard v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2) (requiring “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations”).
In this case, Moran has failed to present a specific objection to either R & R. As such, the
Court is unable to “discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller, 50 F.3d at 380.
Finding no other objections, the Court will adopt the R & Rs as the opinion of the Court. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendations
(docket nos. 26–27) are ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no.
17) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no.
11) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation
(docket no. 28) is OVERRULED.
A separate judgment will issue.
This case is concluded.

Dated: August 14, 2013

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2