Daniel ENJOINED FILER v. Fighter-Daniel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLEN DAVID DANIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERI FIGHTER-DANIEL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-11218
Honorable Robert J. White
Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.
OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS, (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND
(4) AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S NON-DISPOSITIVE
ORDERS
This case involves Pro Se Plaintiff Allen David Daniel’s federal and state
constitutional claims against numerous individually-named Defendants related to his
prior incarceration. (ECF No. 1). The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge
Curtis Ivy, Jr. for all pretrial proceedings. (ECF No. 9). On July 17, 2025, Plaintiff
moved for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 46). Plaintiff
also moved for sanctions against Defendants. (ECF No. 47). Magistrate Judge Ivy
filed a report and recommendation on August 25, 2025, recommending that the
motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings be denied. (ECF No.
Case 2:24-cv-11218-RJW-CI ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 7

2
53). That same day, Magistrate Judge Ivy denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.
(ECF No. 52). Magistrate Judge Ivy then entered a scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 55-
56).
Plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
order denying his motion for sanctions, and the scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 57-59).
For the following reasons, the Court (1) overrules Plaintiff’s objections, (2) adopts
the report and recommendation, (3) denies the motion for summary judgment or
judgment on the pleadings, and (4) affirms the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive
orders.
I. Background
Since Plaintiff does not specifically object to magistrate judge’s factual
summary, the Court finds the recitation of the underlying allegations accurate, and it
will adopt the magistrate judge’s summary of those allegations as they appear in the
report and recommendation. (ECF No. 53, PageID.521-24).
II. Legal Standards
Regarding the dispositive motion for summary judgment or judgment on the
pleadings, the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Pearce v. Chrysler Grp. LLC Pension
Plan, 893 F.3d 339, 346 (6th Cir. 2018); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). “For an objection to be proper, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule
Case 2:24-cv-11218-RJW-CI ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 7

3
72.1(d)(1) requires parties to specify the part of the order, proposed findings,
recommendations, or report to which [the party] objects and to state the basis for the
objection.” Pearce, 893 F.3d at 346 (internal quotation marks omitted). However,
“when objections are merely perfunctory responses rehashing the same arguments
set forth in the original petition, reviewing courts should review a Report and
Recommendation for clear error.” Ruggierlo, Velardo, Burke, Reizen & Fox, P.C. v.
Lancaster, No. 22-12010, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160755, at *3 (quotation omitted).
Regarding the magistrate judge’s orders concerning sanctions and scheduling,
“a district court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s decision on a non-dispositive,
non-excepted, pending pretrial matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 940 F.3d 205, 219 (6th Cir. 2019) (cleaned
up); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “This standard requires
the District Court to review findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of
law de novo.” Id. “A factual finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. (cleaned up).
“And an order is contrary to the law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. (cleaned up).
III. Analysis
A. Motion for Summary Judgement or Judgment on the
Pleadings
Case 2:24-cv-11218-RJW-CI ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 7

4
Plaintiff provides just two largely conclusory objections to the magistrate’s
report and recommendation:
Page ID 521-522 paragraph 1:
Plaintiff Daniel will provide documentary evidence, video under
protected court orders requested, and through discovery as ordered and
testimony that will meet the standards of F. R. Civ. P. 56. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), by January 16, 2026. [sic.]
. . . Page ID 528-529 paragraph 2 section B.; Page ID 529 Paragraphs
1, 2; Page ID 531 paragraphs 1, 2 in section IV:
Plaintiff Daniel will provide documentary evidence, video under
protected court orders requested, and through discovery as ordered and
testimony that will meet the standards of F. R. Civ. P. (12)(c).
Morderwell v. Cuyahoga Cnty., 993 F. 3d 653, 659 (6th Cir. 2021) by
January 16, 2026, and or pretrial. [sic.]
(ECF No. 58, PageID.565 (cleaned up)).
Neither of these objections is particularly clear regarding what mistake(s) the
magistrate judge allegedly made. And while Plaintiff seemingly argues that
summary judgment and/or a judgment on the pleadings is warranted by evidence that
was never before the magistrate (and that is not even currently available to the
Court), this is incorrect. See Marr v. Foy, No. 07-908, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77925,
at *10 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2010) (“It is well established that a party may not raise
an argument, advance a theory, or marshal evidence before a District Judge that was
not fairly presented to the Magistrate Judge.”) (citing Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d
895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000)).
Case 2:24-cv-11218-RJW-CI ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 7

5
Ultimately, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s thorough analysis and
conclusions that Plaintiff’s conclusory motion did not meet his burden to establish
that relief was warranted under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) or 56. The Court also
agrees that Plaintiff’s pre-discovery request for summary judgment should be denied
as premature. See Wells v. Corporate Accounts Receivable, 683 F. Supp. 2d 600, 602
(W.D. Mich. 2010) (noting that “a motion for summary judgment filed before the
close of discovery is often denied as premature in this circuit”). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
overruled, the report and recommendation is adopted, and Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings is denied.
B. Non-Dispositive Motions
Concerning Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, Plaintiff only asserts that the
magistrate judge (1) erroneously concluded that he never filed a reply and (2)
prematurely denied the motion. (ECF No. 59, PageID.570). This is incorrect. In
fact, Plaintiff only filed his reply after the magistrate judge denied the motion. (See
ECF Nos. 53, 54). And by that time, the reply was untimely by over a week. See
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(e)(1)(B) (a reply “must be filed within 7 days after service of
the response”).
Concerning the magistrate judge’s scheduling order, Plaintiff merely argues
that Defendants acted in bad faith by filing a joint discovery plan without his assent.
Case 2:24-cv-11218-RJW-CI ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 7

6
(ECF No. 57, PageID.558). But Defendants only filed their own discovery plan only
after “Plaintiff indicated he did not wish to file a joint plan and would be filing his
own proposed plan.” (ECF No. 50, PageID.492). Plaintiff subsequently filed a
separate discovery plan (ECF No. 51), which includes an email exhibit from Plaintiff
to defense counsel confirming that he was “not interested in filing jointly” and would
“file mine separately.” (ECF No. 51, PageID.510). And the magistrate judge
appropriately considered both competing discovery plans to craft a scheduling order
he deemed reasonable under the circumstances. (ECF No. 56, PageID.552-53).
Given the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections do not establish that either the
magistrate judge’s scheduling order or his order denying Plaintiff’s motion for
sanctions is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff’s objections are therefore
overruled, and these orders are affirmed.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons given, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 58) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation (ECF No. 53) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment or judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 46) is DENIED.
Case 2:24-cv-11218-RJW-CI ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 6 of 7

7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate
judge’s non-dispositive orders (ECF Nos. 57, 59) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s order denying
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 52) is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s scheduling order
(ECF No. 56) is AFFIRMED.
Dated: November 12, 2025 s/Robert J. White
Robert J. White
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-11218-RJW-CI ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 7 of 7