From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heinz v. Teschendorf

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 13, 2006
Case No. 05-CV-73470 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 05-CV-73470.

November 13, 2006


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION," (DOCKET # 46) AND ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On September 19, 2006, this court entered its order accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in this matter. A judgment for the defendants was filed the same day. On September 28, 2006, plaintiff Frederick Heinz filed his motion for "reconsideration" of the court's judgment, asserting he never received a copy of the magistrate's report and recommendation and therefore did not file his desired objections. He did not include his objections but did attach a sworn affidavit to that effect.

The court will allow plaintiff to file objections as though the report and recommendation were being filed on the date of this order. A copy of that report and recommendation (docket entry # 43) is attached to the plaintiff's copy of this order.

As stated in that report and recommendation, the parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to the Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon [the] magistrate judge.

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Heinz v. Teschendorf

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 13, 2006
Case No. 05-CV-73470 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2006)
Case details for

Heinz v. Teschendorf

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK HEINZ, Plaintiff, v. LELAND TESCHENDORF, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 13, 2006

Citations

Case No. 05-CV-73470 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2006)