Opinion
Case No. 14-cv-11722
03-24-2016
ROBERT LEE, Plaintiff, v. SAI LI, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REJECT ORDER AND AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF #48)
On March 3, 2016, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that this Court grant Defendant Dr. Sai Li's ("Dr. Li") motion for judgment on the pleadings (the "R&R"). (See ECF #46.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that "[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days..." (Id. at 7, Pg. ID 341.) The Magistrate Judge then told the parties that the "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal," and that the "[f]iling of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation." (Id.)
Plaintiff Robert Lee ("Lee") timely filed a response to the R&R in which he appears to (1) raise some objections to the R&R and (2) ask the Court for additional time to file further objections (the "Motion"). (See ECF #48.) Having reviewed the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Lee's request for additional time to file objections to the R&R is GRANTED as set forth below. The Motion in all other respects is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Lee must file all objections that he may have to the R&R with the Court no later than April 15 , 2016 . To be clear, the Clerk of the Court must receive Lee's objections no later than April 15, 2016. Lee must therefore submit and/or mail to the Court any objections sufficiently in advance to ensure that the Court receives the objections no later than April 15, 2016.
Each of Lee's objections must specifically and precisely identify the provision of the R&R to which the objection pertains. Lee is again cautioned that the failure to lodge specific objections to the R&R constitutes a waiver of both his right to object and his right to appeal. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). "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). Indeed, "[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would failure to object." Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed. App'x 228, 230. Finally, "the filing of vague, general, or conclsuory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object." Id.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 24, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on March 24, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113