From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Caruso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 16, 2012
Case No. 09-10910 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 09-10910

03-16-2012

CORIELLE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA CARUSO, ET AL., Defendants.


SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW


MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK


ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [67] AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [53] AND

[62] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT[68]

Before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [53] and [62], filed on May 5, 2011, and July 6, 2011, respectively. On January 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [67] recommending that Defendants' motions be GRANTED. Plaintiff filed an Objection [70] on February 9, 2012.

This Court reviews objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on a dispositive motion de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)©. Making some objections to a Report and Recommendation, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all objections a party may have to the report and recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006). Objections must be specific. Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006).

In his Objection, Plaintiff merely repeats the allegations and arguments set out in the complaint and response to motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation thoroughly explores and rejects said allegations and arguments. Plaintiff's objection raises no new issues of fact or law. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation is incorrect.

The Court having reviewed the record in this case, the Opinion and Order of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [53] and [62] are GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on March 16, 2012 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on March 16, 2012: Corielle Johnson.

Michael E. Lang

Deputy Clerk to

District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow


Summaries of

Johnson v. Caruso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 16, 2012
Case No. 09-10910 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2012)
Case details for

Johnson v. Caruso

Case Details

Full title:CORIELLE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA CARUSO, ET AL., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 16, 2012

Citations

Case No. 09-10910 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 16, 2012)