Sumner 308071 v. McQuiggin et al

Filing 9

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION S E A N M. SUMNER #308071, P l a in tif f , F ile No. 2:08-CV-45 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL G R E G O R Y MCQUIGGAN, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER A D O P T I N G THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION O n June 30, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a Report a n d Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that Plaintiff Sean M. Sumner's 42 U.S.C. 1983 prisoner civil rights action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), 1 9 1 5 A (b ), and 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c), for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff filed o b jectio n s to the R&R on July 11, 2008. (Dkt. No. 8.) For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's o b jec tio n s are denied and the R&R is adopted as the opinion of the Court. T h is Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of a R&R to which specific objections are made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the M a g is tra te Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P . 72(b). Plaintiff's objections make conclusory statements about his claims and his legal rig h t s but fail to identify any specific errors in the R&R. Plaintiff also contends that the R & R misstates his factual allegations, but does not indicate what is mis-stated or how this s a v e s his claims. Vague and conclusory objections to a report and recommendation do not m erit review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). See Slater v. Potter, No. 01-1758, 28 F. App'x 5 1 2 , 513 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2002) ("The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does n o t meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to o b jec t."); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) ("The objections must be clear e n o u g h to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and c o n te n tio u s ." ). Plaintiff has also requested that the Court grant him an opportunity to amend his c o m p la in t to correct defects in the complaint. However, 1915(e)(2) requires dismissal of th e complaint and prevents the Court from allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint to d e f e a t dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (providing that the court "shall dismiss the c a se " ) (emphasis added); Honiz v. Hines, No. 02-2255, 92 F. App'x 208, 212 (6th Cir. Feb. 1 0 , 2004) (unpublished) ("Clearly 1915 proscribes a district court from permitting a p lain tiff to amend his complaint to avoid its dismissal under 1915(e)(2) . . . ."). A c c o r d i n g l y, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 8) are DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is A P P R O V E D and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2 I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Sean M. Sumner's complaint is D I S M I S S E D for failure to failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), 1 9 1 5 A (b), and 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c). I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that this dismissal shall count as a STRIKE for p u rpo ses of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds no good-faith basis for appeal w ith in the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). Dated: June 18, 2009 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?