Opinion
Case No. 07-cv-14206
03-14-2013
JEFFREY SANDERS, Plaintiff, v. DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Denise Page Hood
ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT
Now before the Court is Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson's Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Jeffrey Sanders Motions for Entry of Judgment [Docket Nos. 118, 120]. Plaintiff has filed two objections.
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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. The Court may also receive additional evidence. Id. A party's failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Necessarily, a party's failure to object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation relieves the Court from its duty to review the matter independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Objections must be specific. "The filing of objections provides the district court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors immediately." United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981). "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" insufficient. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). "[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have." Smith, 829 F.2d at 1373. Therefore, "A general objection to . . . the magistrate's report has the same effect[] as would a failure to object . . . [and] thereby mak[es] the initial reference to the magistrate useless. . . . This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act." Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Arn, 474 U.S. at 148).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections and finds that they state no discernable basis for rejecting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's objections are overruled.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 121, filed January 8, 2013] is ACCEPTED as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions for Judgment [Docket Nos. 118 and 120] are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
07-14206 Sanders v. Detroit Police Department, et al
Order Accepting the R&R and Denying Plaintiffs Motions for Judgment
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on March 14, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager