Rogers v. Michigan Department of Corrections

Filing 110

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 106 ; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 78 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MILISSA LYNN ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-383
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against her employer, the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC), and five other defendants. Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment, arguing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and Defendants are
entitled to summary judgment (ECF No. 78). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge,
who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that Defendants’ motion be
granted in part and denied in part; specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court
grant Defendants’ motion as to all claims except for Plaintiff’s Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
claims against Defendant Palmer for prospective relief (ECF No. 106 at PageID.3410). The matter
is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of
the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the
objections and issues this Opinion and Order.

Plaintiff presents two one-sentence objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. First, Plaintiff argues there are genuine issues of material fact regarding her
retaliation, gender discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment claims, and,
therefore, summary judgment cannot be granted (ECF No. 107 at PageID.3412). Plaintiff’s
argument is without merit. Objections to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation “shall specifically
identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are
made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Plaintiff’s objection neither
specifies any portion of the Report and Recommendation nor offers any basis in support of her
position. The objection is denied.
Second, Plaintiff objects that she did not consent to a magistrate judge’s review of any
proceedings in this case (ECF No. 107 at PageID.3411). Again, Plaintiff’s argument is without
merit. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and this Court’s Local Rule 72 (ECF No. 5). Neither of the aforementioned authorities requires a
plaintiff’s consent. This objection is also properly denied.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis,
this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not
be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled
on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 107) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 106) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
78) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; specifically, Defendants’ motion is granted
as to all claims except for Plaintiff’s FMLA claims against Defendant Palmer for prospective relief,
which will proceed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

Dated: September 12, 2018

3