Allison #416330 v. Hood

Filing 49

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 38 ; granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment 20 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

DERRICK ALLISON,
Plaintiff,
File No. 2:13-CV-70
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
VICTORIA HOOD,
Defendant.
/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 16, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley issued a
report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 20) be granted, and that this case be dismissed in its entirety. (R&R,
ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on January 30, 2014. (ECF No. 41.)
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 raised three objections to the R&R. He contends generally that the
evidence he submitted satisfies the requirements of Rule 56(c); he contends that the previous
state court action against this defendant did not end in a final judgment on the merits; and he
contends that this case must be tried because the judges in this court and in the Sixth Circuit
are biased against him.
Upon de novo review this Court finds that the previous state court judgment was a
final judgment on the merits, and Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence to create
an issue of fact as to the application of the res judicata doctrine. Therefore, the Magistrate
Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Plaintiff’s assertion that the judges of this court have violated the judicial misconduct act in
previous actions does not alter this finding. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF No. 41)
are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the January 16, 2014, R&R of the Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 38) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 20) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App.
P. 24(a)(3) that an appeal of this action would not be in good faith.

Dated: June 10, 2014

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2