United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSENT AS MOOT, DISMISSING FEDERAL
CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE, AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT
L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge
August 18, 2016, Plaintiff Jesse Young, a prisoner housed at
the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, initiated the
above-captioned matter by filing his pro se
complaint against Defendants Prison Health Services, Nurse
Caldwell, Mary Verlard, Christine Pigg, “Poma, ”
and “Brahman.” See Compl., ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff alleges that employees of the Prison Health
Services violated his constitutional rights through
deliberate indifference to his claims of severe kidney and
liver pain and by failing to assess him for tuberculosis.
Id. He further alleges that after he filed a
grievance, a jail employee, Defendant Brahman, retaliated
against him by falsely accusing Plaintiff of harassing a
fellow inmate. In addition to his federal claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff asserts claims of medical
malpractice, negligence, and retaliation. The matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for report and
recommendation. On September 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
motion giving consent to the magistrate judge to conduct all
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See ECF
NO. 14. Defendants did not file a response to that motion.
Defendant Prison Health Services nor Defendant Poma was
served in this matter despite two attempts by the United
States Marshall Service. See ECF Nos. 7-9. On
October 10, 2016, Defendants Caldwell, Velarde, Pigg, and
Brahman filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that
Plaintiff's federal claim should be dismissed for failing
to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42
U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). See ECF No. 19. On June 1,
2017 the magistrate judge issued her report and
recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's federal
claim be dismissed with prejudice and his state law claims be
dismissed without prejudice. See ECF No. 24. She
also recommended that Plaintiffs motion to give consent be
denied as moot. Plaintiff filed objections to the report on
June 13, 2017. See ECF No. 25.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to
and seek review of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Objections must be
stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If objections are made,
“[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). De novo
review requires at least a review of the evidence before the
magistrate judge; the Court may not act solely on the basis
of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th
Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free
to accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of the magistrate judge. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221
F.Supp.2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo
review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d
636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to
pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that
the district court must specially consider.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently
identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.
See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937
(E.D.Mich.2004). An “objection” that does nothing
more than disagree with a magistrate judge's
determination, “without explaining the source of the
error, ” is not considered a valid objection.
Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Without specific objections,
“[t]he functions of the district court are effectively
duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court
perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort
wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs
contrary to the purposes of the Magistrate's Act.”
his objection, Plaintiff broadly argues that he has presented
genuine issues of material fact with regard to his claims,
and that summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.
However, because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by law, this Court will not address the
substance of his claims. The election not to file specific
objections to the magistrate judge's findings regarding
exhaustion releases the Court from its duty to independently
review the record, and waives any further right to appeal
those findings. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
pointed out by the magistrate judge, Defendants did not
challenge Plaintiff's state law claims in their motion
for summary judgment. When a plaintiff's federal claims
have been dismissed on the merits, the question of whether to
retain jurisdiction over any state law claims rests within
the court's discretion. Blakely v. United
States, 276 F.3d 853, 860 (6th Cir. 2002). However, the
dismissal of the claims over which the federal court had
original jurisdiction creates a presumption in favor of
dismissing without prejudice any state-law claims that
accompanied it to federal court. Id. at 863. In
addition, “[n]eedless decisions of state law should be
avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice
between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed
reading of applicable law.” United Mine Workers of
Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). Plaintiffs state
law claims will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs objections, ECF No. 25, are
further ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, ECF No. 24, is ADOPTED and Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED.
further ORDERED that Plaintiffs complaint, ECF No. 1, is
DISMISSED. Plaintiffs § 1983 claim is dismissed with
prejudice. His ...