Henderson #810508 v. Borowicz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TYRELL HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW BOROWICZ, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-166
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tyrell Henderson, proceeding pro se, brings this prisoner civil rights lawsuit
against Defendant Matthew Borowicz, a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) officer,
alleging excessive use of force and retaliation.1 Before the Court is a report and recommendation
(R&R) from Magistrate Judge Sally J. Berens (ECF No. 60) recommending that the Court grant
Borowicz’s motion for summary judgment and dismiss the case. Henderson has filed objections
to the R&R (ECF No. 63) and moved for an extension of time to file additional objections (ECF
No. 68). For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion for an extension and
approve the R&R.
A. Motion for Extension
The R&R was issued on January 9, 2026, and set a 14-day deadline for objections. On
February 2, the Court received Henderson’s objections to the R&R, as well as a motion for an
extension of time to file objections. The Court granted the extension to the extent that Henderson
was seeking to treat the February 2 objections as timely filed (see ECF No. 64). On February 17,
1 Plaintiff initially named an additional defendant, Gabriel Wilhelm, who has since been dismissed (ECF No. 34).
Case 1:24-cv-00166-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 73, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/25/26 Page 1
of 4

2
the Court received another motion for extension from Henderson, who apparently seeks to file
additional objections to the R&R. Henderson represents that various circumstances have hindered
his ability to file objections, including a “campaign of harassment and tampering with incoming
legal mail” and “inadequate access to [the] law library.” (Mot. for Ext., ECF No. 68, PageID.410.)
But Henderson does not provide a sufficient explanation of these circumstances or evidence that
he has been prevented from researching or filing objections. Indeed, the fact that he has filed
objections suggests the opposite. The Court will therefore deny the motion for an extension.
Henderson also argues that he needs additional time to obtain evidence, which the Court
construes as a request for additional discovery under Rule 56(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). That
rule applies when a party opposing a motion for summary judgment “shows by affidavit or
declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.”
Id. Under such circumstances, the Court may allow additional time for discovery or “issue any
other appropriate order.” Id. Here, Henderson represents that he needs additional evidence
relating to “exhibits in the possession of the M.D.O.C., videotape evidence to support [his] claim,
medical records, photos to show [a] large hematoma,” “X-Ray findings of the back and neck,”
“M.D.O.C. [Policy Directive] 02.01.105,” and “denial of [a] polygraph examination.” (Mot. for
Ext., PageID.410.)
Henderson fails to meet the Rule 56(d) standard for several reasons. First, Henderson did
not request additional discovery in response to Borowicz’s motion for summary judgment, and an
argument “raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s report is deemed waived.”
Swain v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 379 F. App’x 512, 517–18 (6th Cir. 2010). Second, Henderson’s
representations as to the need for additional discovery are not contained in an “affidavit or
declaration” as required by Rule 56(d). Finally, Henderson has not explained why he was unable
Case 1:24-cv-00166-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 73, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/25/26 Page 2
of 4

3
to obtain these records during the discovery period. See CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F.3d 402, 420
(6th Cir. 2008) (in deciding request for additional discovery under Rule 56, court should consider
“when the [party] learned of the issue that is the subject of the desired discovery” and “whether
the [party] was dilatory in its discovery efforts”). Therefore, the Court will deny Henderson’s
request for additional discovery.
B. Objections to the R&R
The magistrate judge concluded that Henderson has not presented evidence creating a
genuine dispute as to Borowicz’s use of excessive force or retaliatory conduct. Henderson raises
several objections to this conclusion. Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the
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). However, a party’s objections must address
specific issues in the R&R; “a general or non-specific objection to a report and recommendation
is tantamount to no objection at all.” Stamtec, Inc. v. Anson, 296 F. App’x 518, 520 (6th Cir.
2008).
Henderson’s first objection is that the report and recommendation “resolve[d] disputed
issues of fact in favor of Defendants.” (Objs., ECF No. 63, PageID.395.) But Henderson does not
point to any examples of disputed issues of fact. And the Court disagrees with his assertion that
the magistrate judge resolved disputed issues of fact, aside from the facts established by
Henderson’s misconduct hearing that the Court gives preclusive effect under Peterson v. Johnson,
714 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2013). See also Roberson v. Torres, 770 F.3d 398, 404–05 (6th Cir. 2014)
(clarifying scope of Peterson). Second, Henderson argues that the magistrate judge did not
liberally construe his pleadings, but pleading standards are inapplicable at the summary judgment
stage. Finally, Henderson contends that the Court should not have dismissed some of his claims
Case 1:24-cv-00166-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 73, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/25/26 Page 3
of 4

4
at the screening stage before discovery occurred. But that dismissal occurred almost two years
ago (see ECF No. 6), and there is no reason to revisit it here.
In short, Henderson’s objections are meritless, and the Court is satisfied that the R&R
makes a sound recommendation. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF No. 63) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an extension (ECF No. 68) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 60) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 40) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preservation order (ECF
No. 69) is DENIED AS MOOT.
A judgment will issue in accordance with this Order.
Dated: February 25, 2026 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00166-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 73, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/25/26 Page 4
of 4