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.

Cook v. Corizon Health, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

May 23, 2019

Daniel Cook, #290601, Plaintiff,
Corizon Health, Inc., et al., Defendants.


          Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Daniel Cook complains that various Michigan Department of Corrections employees violated his civil rights. Currently pending are two motions for summary judgment brought by Defendants and several motions brought by Plaintiff. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending the two motions for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 139.) In the event this Court concludes the dispositive motions should not be granted, the magistrate judge also recommends Plaintiff's motions be denied. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 143.)


         After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Only 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) (per curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to “pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specifically consider”). "[A]n objection that does nothing more than state a disagreement with the magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an 'objection' as that term is used in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72." Brown v. City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, No. 16-2433, 2017 WL 4712064, at *2 (6th Cir. June 16, 2017)


         Plaintiff's objections address more than the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the report and recommendation. Plaintiff's document contains almost 40 objections, most of which are a single sentence. Included in this document (ECF No. 143) are objections to the R&R and to another order (ECF No. 138) issued by the magistrate judge. Finally, Plaintiff requests additional time to submit a brief and also requests that the Court appoint counsel.

         1. Objection to ECF No. 138

         Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's order (ECF No. 138) denying his motion to compel and for sanctions (ECF No. 125) and also denying his motion to produce (ECF No. 116). Plaintiff requests the Court rule on the motions.

         Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED. Plaintiff has not identified any mistake of fact or error of law. Plaintiff provides no reasoned explanation for his objection; he perfunctorily states that he objects.

         2. Motion for Additional Time

         Plaintiff requests more time to file a brief to support his objections. Plaintiff generally complains that Defendants, and others acting on their behalf, have interfered with his ability to litigate this action. At least in this document, Plaintiff provides no details explaining how Defendants have interfered with his ability to address the R&R. The Court received Plaintiff's objections on May 7. To date, the Court has not received any additional submissions from Plaintiff. The Court has reviewed the record and finds no reason to further delay resolution of this matter. Objections are not opportunities to reargue positions at length. Objections provide an opportunity to identify a factual or legal error whose correction requires a different outcome. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for additional time is DENIED.

         3. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

         This is at least the third time Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel. In addition, Plaintiff objected or moved for reconsideration after two of his motions were denied. The reasons Plaintiff's first motion was denied (ECF No. 8) continue to apply at this point in the litigation. The Court has discretion to appoint counsel in civil cases involving indigent parties. Abdul-Ramman v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 65 F.d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995). Generally, appointment of counsel is justified only in exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. See Lavabo v. Cohen, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993). The legal issues are not complex, Plaintiff has been able to prosecute his claims thus far without the benefit of counsel. The ...

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.