ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAUL L. MALONEY, District Judge.

When Plaintiff William Coonrod filed this lawsuit, he was a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections. He alleges various violations of his constitutional rights, all connected to an assault against him by other prisoners. Currently pending are two motions for summary judgment filed by the remaining defendants. (ECF Nos. 180 and 183.) The magistrate judge reviewed the motions and issued a report recommending that both motions be granted. (ECF No. 197.) If the Court agrees, the magistrate judge recommends the lawsuit be terminated.

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).

Coonrod advances two objections. Both objections relate to discovery issues. Coonrod concludes that Defendants' summary judgment motions should not be granted because Defendants either did not comply with a discovery order or the Court did not resolve a discovery dispute.

Coonrod's objections are overruled. Neither of his objections were asserted in his response to Defendants' motions. Neither of his objections have been brought to the Court's attention through an appropriate motion. Neither of the objections identify a mistake of fact or an error of law in the proposed findings and recommendations in the R&R.

Therefore, the R&R (ECF No. 197) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 180 and 183) are GRANTED and the remaining claims are DISMISSED.

Because Coonrod is no longer in prison, the Court must consider whether an appeal would be taken in good faith. The Court has reviewed the record for this purpose and concludes any appeal would be frivolous. The Court makes this determination based on the objections to the R&R. Plaintiff's failure to specifically object to any of the factual and legal recommendations undermines the merits of any claim Plaintiff might have.

IT IS SO ORDERED.