Summary
rejecting appeal where the plaintiff "cites no case law and merely reargues the points originally made . . . simply asserts that the Magistrate Judge was wrong"
Summary of this case from Haviland v. Catholic Health Initiatives-IowaOpinion
Civil No. 3:07-0009.
November 20, 2007
ORDER
On November 14, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 24) be granted. (Docket No. 37) The plaintiff has filed a document which the court has construed as objections to the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 38), and the defendant has responded to those objections (Docket No. 41).
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation relates to a dispositive matter. Therefore this court must make a de novo determination as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Rule 72(b), FED. R. CIV. P.; United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001).
In a two-page document that cites no case law and merely reargues the points originally made by the plaintiff in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, the plaintiff simply asserts that the Magistrate Judge was wrong and that the case should proceed to trial. Because the court finds no specific objections to the Report and Recommendation made in the plaintiff's filing, the plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 24) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Joint Motion to Continue Trial, Pretrial Conference and Pretrial Deadlines (Docket No. 39) is DENIED AS MOOT.
It is so ORDERED.