Weideman v. Doak et al

Filing 63

Memorandum Opinion and Order: The objections to the Interim Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 54 ) are overruled. The well-reasoned and thorough R&R is adopted in its entirety, and the motions to dismiss with prejudice are granted. (Doc. Nos. 19 , 30 , 34 ). This case shall now proceed solely against defendant Dr. Carol Miller, who has a pending motion to dismiss that is not addressed by the R&R. (Doc. No. 55 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 3/10/2017. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH WEIDEMAN,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
DAVE DOAK, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:15-cv-1881
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
(Adopting Report and Recommendation)

Before the Court is the Interim Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 54) of
Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert recommending that the Court grant the motions to dismiss
for failure to state a claim filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) by defendant Dave Doak
(“Doak”) (Doc. No. 19), the defendants/employees of Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution
(the “AOCI defendants”)1 (Doc. No. 30), and defendant Dr. John Vargo (“Vargo”) (Doc. No.
34), all of which are fully briefed as detailed in the R&R. (See R&R at 437.)2
Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. No. 60), and Doak and Vargo filed their opposition to the
objections (Doc. Nos. 61 and 62, respectively).
For the reasons discussed herein, the objections are overruled. The well-reasoned and
thorough R&R is adopted in its entirety, and the motions to dismiss with prejudice are granted.
This case shall now proceed solely against defendant Dr. Carol Miller, who has a pending
motion to dismiss that is not addressed by the R&R.
1

The AOCI defendants are Mrs. K. Edwards, M. Shaw, M. Lynn, Mr. Couch, Amy Pederson, Kelly Haggard,
Sheena Manley, Brooke Featheringham, and Carlos Perez.
2

All page number references are to the page identification number generated by the Court’s electronic docketing
system.

A.

Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Powell v. United States, 37 F.3d 1499 (Table), 1994 WL 532926, at
*1 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1994) (“Any report and recommendation by a magistrate judge that is
dispositive of a claim or defense of a party shall be subject to de novo review by the district court
in light of specific objections filed by any party.”).3
“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s
suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’
as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
“[O]bjections 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). “‘[O]bjections
disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the
findings … believed [to be] in error’ are too general.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725
(6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380).
After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
B.

Ruling on the “Objections”
The Court has construed plaintiff’s objections liberally, as it must for all documents filed

by pro se litigants. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972)
3

See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to”); Local Rule 72.3(b) (any objecting party shall file “written
objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to
which objection is made and the basis for such objections”).

2

(pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers”). Even so, the objections here fail to meet the standards articulated above. The
objections do not cite any specific portion of the R&R that is erroneous in law and/or fact; rather,
they merely reiterate broad arguments already made and rejected by the R&R.4
Plaintiff does little more than disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of the
magistrate judge, insisting that his complaint5 adequately sets forth constitutional violations. The
“general disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate recommendation is tantamount to a
complete failure to object.” Langford v. Caruso, No. 11-10219, 2011 WL 3034539, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. July 25, 2011) (citing Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)).
Therefore, to the extent plaintiff raises any “objections,” and the Court determines that he
has not, those objections are all overruled.
C.

Conclusion
Finding plaintiff’s submission completely lacking from the standpoint of identifying

specific errors of law or fact contained in the R&R, the Court overrules all objections and adopts
the well-reasoned and thorough Interim Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (See Doc.
No. 54.)

4

For example, with respect to defendant Doak, the County Sheriff responsible for pretrial detainees at the Portage
County Justice Center (“PCJC”), plaintiff states by way of objection: “Under the due process clause a pre-trial
detainee cannot, [sic] be punished. … Plaintiff’s entire incarceration as a pre-trial detainee at PCJC was
unconstitutionally punitive … [.]” (Obj. at 484.) He further asserts that, during his entire pretrial detention, “he was
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and is still to this present day receiving this type of punishment from
Dave Doak and his employees at [PCJC].” (Id. at 485.) With respect to the AOCI defendants, plaintiff argues that
“everything that was done to and against the Plaintiff while there, was the result of a violation of retaliation … [.]”
(Id. at 487.) These conclusory assertions and arguments are in the nature of “more of the same” and do not constitute
specific objections to anything in the R&R.
5

The operative complaint is the second amended complaint the magistrate judge granted leave to file. (See Order,
Doc. No. 53; see also Second Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 29-1.)

3

All of the motions to dismiss addressed by the R&R (Doc. Nos. 19, 30 and 34) are
granted, and the case is dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants except defendant Dr. Carol
Miller.6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

The Court recognizes that Dr. Miller has a pending motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 55).
This motion will be ruled on separately.

4