NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the Internal Revenue Service
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff's objections do not comply with the Magistrate Judge's notice requiring any objections to be "concise" and "specific." (Dkt. 32, at 6-7.) For example, Plaintiff's second objection — which objects to the first sentence of the report — goes on for 15 single-spaced pages, includes an article from a website and three pages of user-comments (annotated by Plaintiff), as well as Plaintiff's musings about a variety of topics ranging from Henry VIII, to President Obama, to Adolf Hitler, to "Red China Atheism." (See, e.g., Dkt. 34, at 3-18.) Not only do these 15 pages fail to raise a valid objection, but they are a poignant example of Plaintiff's general failure to comply with the instruction to make his objections concise and specific.
In addition, the majority of Plaintiff's objections do not address the substance of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and are irrelevant to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. For example, Plaintiff's first objection is to the use of the title "Report and Recommendation." (Dkt. 34, at 3.) He claims the title is a "prejudicial attempt to act as a lawyer for the Defendant" and "Judge Nancy Edmunds is perfectly capable of coming to her own conclusions and does not need any recommendations from her staff." (Id.) The objection to the title of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation is unavailing. Not only is a magistrate judge (who is, of course, not a district court judge's "staff") required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to "enter a recommended disposition," Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), but challenging the longstanding practice of how to caption certain papers fails to raise an appropriate objection and is simply unhelpful here.
Plaintiff's objections that do address relevant issues primarily rehash previous arguments. Those arguments were addressed and properly rejected by the Magistrate Judge. The Court is not obligated to address objections that are mere recitations of earlier arguments and that fail to specifically identify errors in the report and recommendation. See Nork v. Comm'r of Social Sec., No. 14-12511, 2015 WL 3620482, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2015); Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL 540818, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2008). The Court, therefore, does not address such objections.
One objection that appears to not merely repeat a prior argument claims the Magistrate Judge's report is flawed in finding that the injury alleged is held in common by all members of the public. (Dkt. 34-1. at 14-18.) Plaintiff objects, arguing that "using [his] particular tax monies to kill particular individual babies . . . causes [him] a concrete and particular and devastating injury which is not held in common by the public." (Id. at 16.) But a particular and concrete injury does not exist simply because a litigant uses the words "particular" and "concrete." See, e.g., Morris v. Sullivan, 897 F.2d 553, 560 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("[C]ourts are not required to entertain frivolous claims merely because they are cloaked in constitutional garb."). Plaintiff has failed to allege the type of concrete and particularized injury required to establish constitutional standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Rather, his alleged injuries rely on his status as taxpayer and as "sovereign citizen"
Finally, Plaintiff's objections include several allegations of bias on the part of the Magistrate Judge. (See, e.g., Dkt. 34-1, at 2 ("I begin to wonder if Her Honor's
The Court, being fully advised in the premises, OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation, ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation in full, and GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is accordingly DENIED.