Summary
finding the Michigan Department of Community Health is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment
Summary of this case from McCray v. Michigan Department of Community Mental HealthOpinion
Case Number 05-10174-BC.
March 31, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS, DISMISSING CASE, AND DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's objections to a report issued by Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder on August 10, 2005, recommending that the case be dismissed because the plaintiff had sued defendants immune under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. In his objections, the plaintiff argues that he has been denied access to a library, which he states is a right as clearly established as Miranda; he has sued the defendants in both their individual and official capacities; and he has been denied access to the courts. The plaintiff also challenges any attempt to abolish preliminary examinations in Michigan's state courts and claims he was denied such an examination.
Only one of plaintiff's objection addresses the basis on which the magistrate judge made his recommendation. That argument, however, is unavailing. The named defendants in this case are state institutions and cannot be sued in their individual capacities. As the magistrate judge noted, states and their departments are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment unless Congress abrogates such immunity or the state otherwise has waived that immunity. See Pennhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984). The plaintiff has not alleged that Congress has abrogated sovereign immunity here or that Michigan has consented to suit. The magistrate judge's conclusion therefore was sound.
The remainder of the plaintiff's objections expresses his frustration with his present situation, but do not address specific portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. As the Sixth Circuit has explained "the failure to file specific objections to a magistrate's report constitutes a waiver of those objections." Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004). Consequently, "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). Aside from the objection noted above, the plaintiff has not pointed to dispositive or contentious issues.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is ADOPTED, the plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt # 26] and motion for discovery [dkt # 12] are DENIED as moot.