Wickenheiser v. Marquette UP Health System et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 5 : Counts IV through VI of Plaintiff's Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Plaintiff to file within 14 days or case will be dismissed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

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

ALIZEE WICKENHEISER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:17-CV-84

v.

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

UP HEALTH SYSTEM
MARQUETTE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO PROVIDE UPDATED INFORMATION
On June 29, 2017, Magistrate Judge Greeley conducted a review of Plaintiff’s pro se
complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), to determine whether the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. (ECF No. 5.) The magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation (R & R) recommending that Plaintiff’s claim in Count IV be dismissed because
the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman of Degrading Treatment
or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights do not create private
rights of action. (Id. at PageID.94.) The magistrate judge further concluded that Count V should
be dismissed because 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340 and 2340A are criminal statutes that do not provide a civil
cause of action. (Id.) Finally, the magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff’s claim in Count VI,
based on the Michigan Ethnic Intimidation Act, should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s allegations
do not suffice to show that Defendants acted with a malicious intent to intimidate or harass her based
on her gender identity. (Id. at 7–8.)

Plaintiff has filed a lengthy Objection to the R & R. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), upon
receiving objections to a report and recommendation, the district judge “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” After conducting a de novo review of the R & R, Plaintiff’s Objection,
and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court concludes that the R & R should be adopted.
A party who seeks de novo review of a report and recommendation must “file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). This
Court’s local rules similarly provide that objections “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). “The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections
does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to
object.” Cole v. Yukins, F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380
(6th Cir. 1995)).
Although Plaintiff has filed a 23-page Objection, Plaintiff’s objections are—generously
characterized—vague and conclusory. Plaintiff’s rambling missive contains much information but
does not address the reasons given in the R & R for dismissal of Counts IV, V, and VI on initial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff thus fails to offer any coherent basis for
this Court to reject the R & R.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
issued June 29, 2017 (ECF No. 5) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court.
Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 6) is OVERRULED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts IV through VI of the complaint are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order,
Plaintiff shall provide an updated address to the Clerk. The Court notes that August 2, 2017, the
discovery return letter the Clerk sent to Plaintiff was returned because Plaintiff was no longer at her
former address and left no forwarding address. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff’s failure to provide an
updated address within the specified time shall result in a dismissal for lack of prosecution. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Dated: August 9, 2017

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

3