Opinion
Case No. 13-12808
03-18-2015
ROBERT SANGO, Plaintiff, v. DAPHNE JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. GRAND
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [203] , OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION [117]; GRANTING DEFENDANTS JOHNSON , RUSSELL AND MACEACHERN'S MOTION TO DISMISS [92] , GRANTING DEFENDANTS CABALLERO , COLE , DELL , ELLISON , GUTHRIE , HOGAN , HUGHES , MCDAID , PEEL , RIVARD , ROWELY , SCHNEIDER AND SHAWLTZ'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [153] , GRANTING DEFENDANT MCCLELLAND'S MOTION TO DISMISS [160] , GRANTING DEFENDANT STEVE BENN'S MOTION TO DISMISS [162] , DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [188 , 196] AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO "DENY DEFENSE" [157 , 171 , 177] , AND CLOSING CASE
On October 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) [203] recommending the Court grant Defendants Daphne Johnson, Kenneth MacEachern, and Richard Russell'S Motion to Dismiss [92], Defendants Dustin Caballero, Andrew Cole, John Dell, Andrew Ellison, Nick Guthrie, Hogan, Kelly S. Hughes, Joseph McDaid, Peel, Steven Rivard, David Rowley, L. Schnieder, and Shawltz's Motion for Summary Judgment [153], Defendant Janet McClelland'S—captioned as "John Doe"—Motion to Dismiss [160], and Defendant Steve Benn's Motion to Dismiss [162] and deny Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment [188, 196] and "Deny Defense" Motions [157, 171, 177]. Plaintiff filed an Objection [117].
On October 29, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an (R&R) [205] recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Defendants Jeffrey Davis and Inspector Olson [190] and dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Jeffrey Davis and Inspector Olson. Plaintiff filed an Objection [117].
This Court reviews objections to an R&R on a dispositive motion de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Making some objections to an R&R, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all objections a party may have to the report and recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006). Objections that are filed must be specific. Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Plaintiff objects to the R&R's [203] recommendation to grant the Motions to Dismiss [92, 160, 162] by simply reiterating the procedural and substantive law in the R&R [203] without stating any specific objection. Plaintiff objects to the R&R's [203] recommendation to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment [153] by simply disputing that he did not complete the internal grievance procedure without offering any proof of that claim. Neither of those objections are specific enough to sustain. The remainder of Plaintiff's objections are difficult to discern and also not specific enough to give the Court reason to sustain them.
The Court having reviewed the record, the R&Rs [203, 205] of the Magistrate Judge are hereby ADOPTED and are entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Further, the Court adopts the basis for dismissing Davis and Olson elaborated in the R&R [205] to dismiss the remaining unserved Defendants—Ray Finco, Kevin Nevin, Officer Jansen. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Daphne Johnson, Kenneth MacEachern, and Richard Russell'S Motion to Dismiss [92] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Dustin Caballero, Andrew Cole, John Dell, Andrew Ellison, Nick Guthrie, Hogan, Kelly S. Hughes, Joseph McDaid, Peel, Steven Rivard, David Rowley, L. Schnieder, and Shawltz's Motion for Summary Judgment [153] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Janet McClelland'S—captioned as "John Doe"—Motion to Dismiss [160] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Steve Benn's Motion to Dismiss [162] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Jeffrey Davis and Inspector Olson [190] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Jeffrey Davis, Inspector Olson, Ray Finco, Kevin Nevin, Officer Jansen are DISMISSED SUA SPONTE .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [188, 196] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Deny Defense" Motions [157, 171, 177] are DENIED.
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 18, 2015