United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and
MODIFYING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS TO OBJECTION 7 (HABEAS
L. Maloney United States District Judge.
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.
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).
1. Lack of Facts
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.
2. Date of Screening
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.
3 and 4
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.
5. Lack of Proper Support for Summary Judgment Motions
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.