Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Dunbar v. Rozen

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

July 17, 2019

Joseph Gregory Dunbar, #129278, Plaintiff,
v.
Bradley Rozen and Robert Woldhuis, Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and MODIFYING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS TO OBJECTION 7 (HABEAS CLAIM)

          Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge.

         The magistrate judge issued a report recommending the Court deny three motions filed by Plaintiff Joseph Dunbar. (ECF No. 120.) Dunbar filed objections. (ECF No. 123.) For the reasons provided below, Dunbar's objections are overruled and the Court will adopt the report and recommendation.

         I.

         The standards for considering objections to a report and recommendation are well-settled. 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). "[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).

         II.

         Objection 1. Lack of Facts

         Dunbar contends the report and recommendation lacks facts. This objection is overruled. Rule 72, not Rule 52, governs the report and recommendation. Neither rule specifies a particular format for a finding of fact or a proposed finding of fact. Neither rule requires each and every finding of fact or proposed finding of fact be specifically numbered. Through the discussion of each motion, the magistrate judge sets for the proposed findings of fact for each recommendation.

         Objection 2. Date of Screening

         Dunbar contends the magistrate judge erred when stating that the petition was screened on July 12, 2017. This objection is overruled. The magistrate judge correctly stated that a screening occurred on July 12, 2017. Dunbar is correct that a screening also occurred on May 6, 2015. Correction of any error does not alter any of the material facts or recommendations relevant to this R&R.

         Objections 3 and 4

         Neither of these objections address a material fact set forth in the R&R. These two objections merely recite some history of this lawsuit. At best, these objections identify issues resolved in other orders that are not part of the report and recommendation. These objections are overruled.

         Objection 5. Lack of Proper Support for Summary Judgment Motions

         Dunbar argues Defendants have failed to support their motions for summary judgment with properly sworn affidavits. This objection is overruled. This objection does not address any proposed finding of fact, conclusion of law, or recommendation in the report and recommendation. The magistrate judge does not address any motion filed by Defendants in this R&R.

         Objection ...


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.