Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bonga v. Abdellatif

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 21, 2017

Jeffrey Lee Bonga, Plaintiff,
Badawi Abdellatif, M.D., et. al., Defendants.

          Magistrate Judge, Anthony P. Patti



         Plaintiff Jeffrey Lee Bonga (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner confined in the Michigan Department of Corrections St. Louis Correctional Facility, filed a pro se complaint against a number of defendants, seeking declaratory, injunctive, compensatory, and punitive relief. (Doc. # 1). All pretrial matters in this case were referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti for issuance of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. # 9).

         Plaintiff filed two motions for preliminary injunctions in this case. (Docs. # 3, 30). In his first motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to approve and dispense certain medications to Plaintiff for treatment of his alleged medical needs. Plaintiff's second motion seeks the return of Plaintiff's “legal material” that was allegedly confiscated by Defendants. On May 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) as to Plaintiff's motions. (Doc. # 33, R&R). Magistrate Judge Patti's R&R recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's motions without prejudice.

         On June 6, 2017, this Court entered an Order Adopting Magistrate Judge Patti's R&R, noting that Plaintiff had not filed an objection to the R&R within the time permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (Doc. # 40).

         Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on June 7, 2017. (Doc. # 42, Pl.'s Objs.”). On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Adopting Magistrate Judge Patti's R&R. (Doc. # 45). In it, Plaintiff states that he “gave proper prison authorities his Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations” within the time specified by Rule 72 and asks the Court to consider his objections. The Court shall GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

         Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Patti's R&R. Plaintiff has lodged 6 objections to the R&R. Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff's objections and the time to do so has passed.

         For the reasons outlined below, the Court ACCEPTS & ADOPTS the R&R IN PART and RETURNS to the Magistrate for further consideration IN PART. The Court adopts the R&R except to the extent that the R&R recommends that the Court deny without prejudice Plaintiff's first request for injunctive relief (Doc. # 3) as to Defendant Borgerding. Because Defendant Borgerding has now appeared in this action, the Court shall RETURN this issue to Magistrate Judge Patti for further consideration. The R&R is adopted in all other respects.


         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Objections must “(A) specify the part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which a person objects; and (B) state the basis for the objection.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).

         Objections are not “a second opportunity to present the argument already considered by the Magistrate Judge.” Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court should not consider arguments that have not first been presented to the magistrate judge. See Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads, 770 F.Supp.2d 778, 785 (E.D. N.C. 2011).

         “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).


         Objection # 1. Plaintiff first objects to Magistrate Judge Patti's assertion that Plaintiff brought the instant suit against six defendants. (Pl.'s Objs. at p. 1). Plaintiff argues that he recently filed an amended complaint, which names eight defendants. Plaintiff's objection is without merit. Simply put, Plaintiff disregards the fact that the Magistrate Judge's R&R was issued be ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.