UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION __________________________

DEMARCUS T. YOUNG #753683,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-CV-204

v. HON. GORDON J. QUIST

S. NEWCOMB,

Defendant. __________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This is a civil rights action brought by state prisoner, Demarcus T. Young, pursuant to

. On July 22, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R), recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff has filed an objection. (ECF No. 47.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), “a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of a magistrate judge. “The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie,

(6th Cir. 1995) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991)). A general objection that fails to specify the issues in contention equates to no objection.

Plaintiff’s objection appears to be a general objection that amounts to no objection. Plaintiff first states that there is “a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendant Newcomb’s first alleged adverse action.” (ECF No. 47 at PageID.515.) He next states that there is “a genuine issue of material [fact] relating to his claim that he was fired.” (Id. at PageID.516.) Plaintiff, however, does not offer any explanation as to why there is a genuine issue of material fact or identify any issue with the magistrate judge’s analysis. “[A]n objection that does nothing more than state a disagreement with the magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.” Brown v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 16-2433,

, at *2 (6th Cir.

June 16, 2017). Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s analysis and agrees that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Therefore, the Court will adopt the R & R. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 22, 2020, Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 46) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the R & R. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with prejudice. This case is concluded. A separate judgment will enter.

Dated: September 28, 2020 /s/ Gordon J. Quist GORDON J. QUIST UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE