The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Michael R. Barrett
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman's September 12, 2011, Report and Recommendation ("Report") (Doc. 107)*fn1 and two corresponding motions for summary judgment: (1) Plaintiff Billy F. Anderson's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 98); and (2) Defendants City of Norwood, City of Norwood Police Department, and Officer Robert Ward's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 100). The Report recommends that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. 107, 17.)
The parties were given proper notice, pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including notice that the parties may waive further appeal if they fail to file objections in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949--50 (6th Cir. 1981).*fn2 Plaintiff has filed a timely Objection (Doc. 110).
This matter is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection, and the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety.
This Court has summarized the facts and procedural history of this case numerous times. (See, e.g.,Docs. 32, 33, 64, 89, 107.) Given the current procedural posture of this matter, there is no need to restate the facts fully once again. Thus, the Court only repeats the most basic facts here.
Plaintiff brings this action pro se. He originally named fifteen Defendants. However, all but three have been dismissed on a variety of grounds. The remaining Defendants are the City of Norwood, the Norwood Police Department, and Norwood Police Officer Robert Ward.
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) alleges that on October 20, 2007, former Defendant Stacy Scherr and Officer Ward instituted charges of aggravated menacing and carrying a concealed weapon against him. Plaintiff alleges that Scherr and Ward fabricated the probable cause necessary for those charges. Plaintiff's first criminal trial in state court ended in a mistrial, but a jury acquitted him after he represented himself at a second trial.
The basic thrust of Plaintiff's Complaint is that Defendants conspired to institute or maintain the state criminal action against him in an effort to "cover up" the "erroneous charges" brought against him and to "slander and discredit" him. (Doc. 1, 3.) He seeks $12.8 million in damages, as Plaintiff states, "as compensation for loss of Nobel Prize in Economics ($10,000,000 plus interest of $2,800,000)." (Doc. 45, 1, 4--5; Doc. 1, 4.)
A. Report and Recommendation Standard
When objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (hanging paragraph). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review; "[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object." Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315, 323 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
B. Motion for Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is "genuine" when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, ...