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)

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