United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. GRAND MAG. JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION  AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 19, 2017, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a
Report and Recommendation that recommended the Court grant
defendants' pending motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 24.) On
September 27, 2017, plaintiff timely filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 26.) On October 10, 2017,
defendants timely filed a response to the objections. (Dkt.
27.) On October 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a reply to the
response, arguing that the defendants' response was
untimely filed because it was not filed within fourteen days
of his objections. (Dkt. 28.) This reply does not constitute
an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and is
incorrect about the timing of the filing of defendants'
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). This Court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Plaintiff
does not object to the findings of fact or the legal
rationale in the Report and Recommendation, and the Court
adopts them in their entirety.
has filed three objections to the Report and Recommendation:
(1) that he never consented to the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R. 73.1,
rendering the Report and Recommendation moot; (2) the
Magistrate Judge erred in denying plaintiff's request to
issue subpoenas by not giving an “individualized
reasoning” for the denial or holding a hearing; and (3)
the Magistrate Judge cited a portion of E.D. Mich. Local R.
7.1(a)(2)(C) that plaintiff contends does not exist to
justify defendants not seeking concurrence in the motion.
first objection is that that this case was never referred to
Magistrate Judge Grand because he never consented to have the
Magistrate Judge “conduct all proceedings in a civil
case and order entry of judgment in the case.” E.D.
Mich. Local R. 73.1(a). However, this case was referred under
E.D. Mich. Local R. 72.1(a)(2)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), which permit a district judge to
“designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings,
including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of
the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
the disposition, by a judge of the court, of [dispositive
motions such as a motion to dismiss].” (See
also Dkt. 8; Dkt. 24 at 1.) The consent of the parties
is not required for such a designation. Accordingly, this
objection is without merit.
second objection is that the Report and Recommendation fails
to address his request to issue subpoenas. In support of this
objection, plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are required
to show that a contractor relationship existed between
Veterans Affairs and Covenant Hospital. (Dkt. 26 at 3.) As
defendants note in their response to plaintiff's
objection, plaintiff did not make this argument at any point
before the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and
Recommendation. He may not do so now, because parties may not
“raise at the district court stage new arguments or
issues that were not presented to the [Magistrate
Judge].” Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895,
907 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000).
Magistrate Judge Grand thoroughly addressed plaintiff's
request to issue subpoenas. (See Dkt. 24 at 4 n.3.)
The Report and Recommendation states that the information
plaintiff seeks is not relevant to any claim in this case,
and so the request cannot be granted. (Id.) Assuming
that plaintiff's objection requires the Court to perform
a de novo review of his request for subpoenas, the
Court is in full agreement with the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff's desired discovery has no
apparent relevance to any issue in this case. This objection
is also without merit.
Report and Recommendation states that defendants were not
required to seek concurrence to file their motion to dismiss
because E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(a)(2)(C) states that
“[i]f concurrence is not obtainnted, the motion or
request must state . . . [that] concurrence in this motion
has not been sought because the movant or nonmovant is an
incarcerated prisoner proceeding pro se.” (Dkt. 24 at
4.) Plaintiff argues that no such rule existed at the time he
filed this action. However, Magistrate Judge Grand accurately
stated the rule, which was absolutely in effect at the time
this suit was filed. This objection is without merit.
review of the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ordered
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 24) is ADOPTED;
Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED; and
case is ...