Opinion
NO. 1:18-cv-00058
02-11-2021
BRIAN JERMAINE DODSON #308329, Plaintiff, v. CHERRY LINDAMOOD, et al., Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 62), which was filed on August 21, 2020. Through the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Tony Parker's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 53) be granted. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 17, 2020, the Court received Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 64).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, "only those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review." Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
As an initial matter, Plaintiff's objections do not directly challenge the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's only specific objection to the Report and Recommendation is to the Magistrate Judge's finding of fact that "[s]ince at least April of 2017, Mr. Dodson alleges that he has suffered from excruciating daily headaches accompanied by visual disturbances starting from when he was housed at the Morgan County Correctional Facility." (See Doc. No. 64 at 1 (citing Doc. No. 62 at 2)). Plaintiff objects to this finding on the basis that the referenced headaches and visual disturbances have been going on since before April 2017. (See id.). However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this objection undermines the Report's conclusions. The rest of Plaintiff's objections fail to direct the Court to specific factual or legal errors he alleges the Magistrate Judge committed in making his determination. Objections which do not identify an error are meritless. See Howard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Thus, Plaintiff's objections do not provide a basis to reject or modify the currently pending Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and fully considered Plaintiff's Response (Doc. No. 64), the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections are without merit and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 62) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 53) is GRANTED.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE