Lawrence Flack v. P. Hernandez, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAWRENCE FLACK,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-10752

v. Hon. Brandy R. McMillion United States District Judge P. HERNANDEZ, et al., Hon. David R. Grand Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 33), DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S BIVENS CLAIMS, ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 12), AND OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 42)

Plaintiff Lawrence Flack (“Flack”) filed this pro se action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the United States (“Defendant”),1 claiming the Defendant “failed to give [him] adequate attention to his serious medical needs.” See generally ECF No. 1. He claims that due to the care he did and did not receive,

1 In his complaint, Flack had also asserted Bivens claims against a slew of individual defendants. However, in his response brief, Flack indicated his desire to withdraw those claims and proceed in this action solely with his FTCA claim against the United States. See ECF No. 27, PageID.252, 254. he developed a large tumor in his bladder which led to him having to undergo

additional surgeries, his bladder being removed, the loss of his prostate, and the development of a “hydrocele.” Id. at PageID.22-26. He also alleges he suffered verbal abuse following one of his surgeries. Id. at PageID.24. On August 20, 2025, this Court referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate

Judge David R. Grand, including Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment which was filed on August 19, 2025. See ECF Nos. 12, 13. On March 5, 2026, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)

recommending that the undersign dismiss Flack’s Bivens claims, allow him 30 days to file an Amended Complaint and deny without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12). See generally ECF No. 33. At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek review of

his recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R. Id. at PageID.467. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), if a party objects to a

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the District Judge, in conducting a de novo review, can “accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When a party objects to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s report

and recommendation, the Court’s de novo review is limited to the objected portions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Lyons v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 661

(E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court has no duty to conduct an independent review of the portions of the R&R to which the parties did not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985). Moreover, the objections must be stated with specificity. Id. at 151; Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “A general objection to

the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). An objection that “merely restates the arguments previously presented is not

sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court is not obligated to address objections made in this form because the objections fail to identify the specific errors in the magistrate judge’s proposed recommendations, and such objections undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate’s Act, which serves to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial resources. See Owens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV-47, 2013 WL 1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013) (citations and emphasis omitted). Here, Plaintiff timely filed “Objections/Omissions Pertaining to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.” ECF No. 42. However, the objections to the R&R do not point out specific legal errors of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation but instead seek to add additional factual considerations that

Plaintiff deems necessary “in order to get the facts straight.” ECF No. 42, PageID.554. And Plaintiff contends that his “Objections/Omissions” are an “earnest

endeavor to put on the record what should be promulgated.” Id. Further, the Objections/Omissions do not disagree with the recommended disposition of the R&R. The Court finds it is best to include additional factual information, not in the

objections to the R&R, but in the Amended Complaint which the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff be able to file. ECF No. 33, PageID.452. Because Defendant has not objected to that proposed recommendation, the Court will adopt

it and order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint which includes any factual basis that he believes is necessary to prosecute his claims. As further recommended by the R&R, the Court will dismiss with prejudice the Bivens claims. The Court will also dismiss without prejudice Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12), to be refiled after the filing of the Amended Complaint, if Defendant so desires. * * * Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Flack’s Bivens claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Flack shall file an Amended Complaint

on or before April 27, 2026. Failure to do so will result in this case being dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and E.D. Mich. R. 41.2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 25, 2026 s/Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan HON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge