United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS
L. Maloney United States District Judge
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.)
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)
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.
Objection to ECF No. 138
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.
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.
Motion for Additional Time
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
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
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