Filed: Apr. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #46), (2) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #49), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF #32) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Robert Lee ("Lee") alleges, among other things, that while he was a patient at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Defendant Dr. Sai Li ("Dr. Li"), a psychiatrist, forced him to take medication that caused certain side effects. ( Se
Summary: ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #46), (2) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #49), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF #32) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Robert Lee ("Lee") alleges, among other things, that while he was a patient at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Defendant Dr. Sai Li ("Dr. Li"), a psychiatrist, forced him to take medication that caused certain side effects. ( See..
More
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #46), (2) OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #49), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF #32)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Robert Lee ("Lee") alleges, among other things, that while he was a patient at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, Defendant Dr. Sai Li ("Dr. Li"), a psychiatrist, forced him to take medication that caused certain side effects. (See Am. Compl. ECF #5.) Dr. Li moved for judgment on the pleadings on July 16, 2015 (the "Motion"). (See ECF #32.) The assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation on March 3, 2016, in which he recommended that the Court grant the Motion (the "R&R"). (See ECF #46.)
On March 23, 2016, Lee filed a motion with the Court asking for to extend the time to file objections to the R&R (the "Motion to Extend Time"). (See ECF #48.) The Court granted the Motion to Extend Time and instructed Lee to file his objections to the R&R by no later than April 15, 2016. (See ECF #49 at 2, Pg. ID 350.) The Court further instructed Lee that his objections needed to specifically respond to the portions of the R&R to which he objected, and that the failure to file such specific objections would result in a waiver of both his right to object and to appeal this Court's ruling:
Each of Lee's objections must specifically and precisely identify the provision of the R&R to which the objection pertains. Lee is again cautioned that the failure to lodge specific objections to the R&R constitutes a waiver of both his right to object and his right to appeal. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). "An `objection' that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an `objection' as that term is used in this context." Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Indeed, "[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would failure to object." Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed. App'x 228, 230. Finally, "the filing of vague, general, or conclsuory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object." Id.
(Id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 350-51; emphasis in original.)
Lee filed his objections on April 14, 2016, in a filing Lee titled "Count I $200,000/Motion for R&R" (the "Objections"). (See ECF #50.) The Court has reviewed Lee's filing and cannot discern any specific objections to the R&R. Lee does ask for additional time to respond to the R&R, but Lee does not explain why the extra time the Court has already provided is not sufficient, nor why he needs more time to respond to the R&R. Lee also appears to object to the fact that he was not allowed to conduct discovery, but the Court does not believe discovery is warranted. Finally, the Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it well-reasoned and well-supported.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lee's Objections to the R&R (ECF #49) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF #46) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Dr. Li's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF #32) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the R&R, and Lee's claims against Dr. Li are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
