ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (ECF #27) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #24)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff Marcus Hanserd ("Hanserd") alleges that Defendant Natalie Souder ("Souder") violated his First Amendment rights. After Souder moved for summary judgment, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommends that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of Souder (the "R&R"). (See ECF #24.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at 10-11, Pg. ID 147-48.)

On March 2, 2017, Hanserd filed timely objections to the R&R (the "Objections"). (See ECF #27). The Objections, however, only quote portions of the R&R and do not make any arguments about why the Magistrate Judge erred. (See id. at 1-2, Pg. ID 152-153.) "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). See also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) ("[A] general objection to a magistrate's report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear enough to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious").1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED the Objections (ECF #27) are OVERRULED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition in the R&R is ADOPTED and Souder's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #24) is GRANTED.