Opinion
1:23-1262-STA-jay 1:23-1265-STA-jay
07-09-2024
WILLIAM SCOTT HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH FOX, Defendant. WILLIAM SCOTT HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH FOX and CITY OF JACKSON, Defendants.
ORDER PARTIALLY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff has filed related pro se complaints pursuant to 42 USC §1983 in case numbers 1:23-cv-01262-STA-jay, 1:23-cv-01265-STA-jay, and 1:23-cv-01266-JDB-jay. Plaintiff filed Case No. 1:23-cv-01262-STA-jay against Defendant Joseph Fox (“Howard I”) alleging a claim of excessive force related to an arrest that took place on August 22, 2023. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed Case No. 1:23-cv-01265-STA-jay (“Howard II”) alleging a claim of false imprisonment relating to the same arrest. Case number 1:23-cv-01266-JDB-jay is before a different judge, and, therefore, is not the subject of this order.
In his report and recommendation (ECF No. 9), the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that Howard I and II be consolidated pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Fox proceed and process be issued and service effectuated by the United States Marshal Service in Howard I; his unreasonable seizure claim against Defendant Fox under the Fourth Amendment be dismissed in Howard II; and the City of Jackson Police Department be dismissed as a defendant in Howard II.
Plaintiff has filed objections (ECF No. 10) to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation in Howard I but not in Howard II. Plaintiff's objections appear to be addressed to the report in recommendation in 1:23-cv-01266-JDB-jay rather than in the present case(s).
When examining a Report and Recommendation, the district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). The Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has timely filed objections; however, they are vague and nonspecific, and, therefore, do not constitute proper objections. See Hart v. Wood, 2015 WL4393279, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. July 15, 2015) (citing Fields v. Lapeer 71-A Dist. Ct. Clerk, 2 Fed.Appx. 481, 482-83 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that the filing of vague, general or conclusory objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is tantamount to a complete failure to object); Seals v. Seals, 2014 WL 3592037, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. July 21, 2014) (“Failure to identify specific concerns with a magistrate judge's report results in treatment of a party's objections as a general objection to the entire magistrate judge's report. A general objection is considered the equivalent of failing to object entirely.”)); see also Cole v. Yukins, 7 Fed.Appx. 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)) (“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”).
Because Plaintiff's objections are vague and non-specific, the Court need not consider them and may treat the report and recommendation as though there was no objection. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge's report[ ] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition that the excessive force claim in Howard I should proceed and that the unreasonable seizure claim against Defendant Fox under the Fourth Amendment be dismissed and the City of Jackson Police Department be dismissed as a defendant in Howard II. Accordingly, there is no need to consolidate Howard I and Howard II because there are no claims remaining in Howard II, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendants in 1:23-cv-01265-STA-jay.
The Court ADOPTS the portion of the report and recommendation that the claim of excessive force against Defendant Fox proceed in 1:23-cv-01262-STA-jay and that process be issued and service effectuated by the United States Marshal Service on Defendant Fox.
IT IS SO ORDERED.