United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTIONS; (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Eric Hunault brings this action against
Defendant FCA U.S. LLC, his former employer, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. #
25.) Pending before the court is the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. # 48) of United States Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand, to whom this court referred all pretrial
matters under 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A) and (B),
recommending that this court grant Defendant's motion.
Plaintiff has filed numerous objections (Dkt. # 49) under 28
U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), and
Defendant has filed its response. (Dkt. # 50.) After
reviewing all of the briefing, the objections, and the
response, the court finds that a hearing is unnecessary. E.D.
Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).
court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and grant
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons
filing of timely objections requires the court to “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). See United States
v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). This de
novo review requires this court to examine the relevant
pleadings and such evidence as may have been submitted in
support of the motions to determine the outcome of the
motions. A failure to file objections, or a failure to file
specific objections, each constitute a waiver of any
further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505
(6th Cir. 1991).
order for this court to apply meaningful de novo
review, it is insufficient for the objecting party to simply
incorporate by reference earlier pleadings or reproduce an
earlier unsuccessful motion for dismissal or judgment (or
response to the other party's dispositive motion).
Insufficient objections to a magistrate judge's analysis
will ordinarily be treated by the court as an unavailing
general objection. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d
721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Overly general objections do
not satisfy the objection requirement.”).
alleges that Defendant required him to be evaluated by a
psychiatrist before offering him employment, in violation of
the ADA. The provision on which his claim is based, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12112(d)(2), provides that “a covered entity
shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of
a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual
with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such
disability.” In his Report and Recommendation, the
magistrate judge concludes that Plaintiff's claim is
“not viable” because the provision “applies
only to ‘job applicants, ' and there is no genuine
issue of material fact that [Plaintiff] was not a job
applicant at the time of the challenged medical
examination.” (Dkt. # 48, Pg. ID 1417.) Rather, the
magistrate judge finds that Plaintiff was “a returning
employee with known medical issues; as such, [Defendant] was
within its rights in requiring him to undergo a medical
examination that was ‘job-related and consistent with
business necessity, ' pursuant to §
raises around thirty-eight objections to the Report and
Recommendation in his responsive filing. (Dkt. # 49.) The
majority of the objections do not merit specific treatment.
Many are minor complaints about the magistrate judge's
word choice or phrasing that are irrelevant to the underlying
legal issues. (E.g., id. at Pg.
Id. 1430 (Objection # 1, objecting to the use of
“et seq.” when citing the ADA).) Others
argue that the magistrate judge omitted facts from his
reasoning, but do not explain how or why these facts, if
included, would change the analysis. (E.g.,
id. (Objection # 2, requesting that the factual
background mention that “Rudy Star was a contract
supervisor”).) Still others accuse the magistrate judge
of bias and mistreatment without support. Most factual
assertions are unaccompanied by citations to supporting
evidence in the record. Accordingly, except for those
specifically discussed below, Plaintiff's objections are
“unavailing general objections” and the court
will not consider them. Howard, 932 F.2d at 508-509.
Objections 20, 22, and 25
repeatedly argues that he should be treated as a “job
applicant” for the purposes of section 12112(d)(2)
because he was told by his union that he would be treated as
a “rehire.” (Dkt. # 49, Pg. ID 1439, 1446, 1449.)
However, Plaintiff does not address the magistrate
judge's extensive treatment of this argument. (Dkt. # 48,
Pg. ID 1419-21 (citing Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics,
Inc., 70 F.3d 667 (1st Cir. 1995)).) The magistrate
judge explained that Plaintiff's own assertion that his
union - not his employer - used the word “rehire”
is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether he was a “job applicant” within the
meaning of section 12112(d)(2) at the time of the medical
examination, particularly when Plaintiff has also testified
that his union told him “it was a fitness for duty exam
to return to work.” (Id. at Pg. ID 1419 n.10
(quoting Dkt. # 25-1) (emphasis removed).) The court agrees
with and adopts the magistrate judge's reasoning on this
point, and overrules these objections.
Objections 16 (2nd),  17, and 18
argues that his mother requested medical leave for him via
text message to his union representative and, further, that
Defendant's failure to grant the request constitutes an
unreasonable failure to accommodate in violation of the ADA.
(Dkt. # 49, Pg. ID 1437-38.) In support, Plaintiff states
that “[d]etails are provided in notes submitted and
made by Plaintiff's mother as well as Plaintiff's
affidavit citing conversation.” (Dkt. # 49, Pg. ID
1437.) The court has reviewed Plaintiff's mother's
notes and has been unable to locate any mention of a text to
his union representative. (Dkt. # 38, Pg. ID 600.) In any
event, as the magistrate judge explained, there is no
evidence that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's mother, or
Plaintiff's union representative actually conveyed a
request for leave to Defendant and Plaintiff's “own
unsupported assertions to the contrary are insufficient to
survive summary judgment.” (Dkt. # 48, Pg. ID 1425 n.15
(citing Gooden v. City of Memphis Police Dept., 67
F. App'x 893, 895 (6th Cir. 2003)
(“Conclusory allegations, speculation, and
unsubstantiated assertions are not evidence, and are not
enough to defeat a well supported motion for summary