Opinion
Case No. 2:10-cv-12114
02-23-2017
JOHN JONES, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA BARNHARDT, et al., Defendants.
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANT PAULA MASS'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT (DE 135) I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should deny the motion for summary judgment filed by Paula Mass as moot, as she is no longer a defendant in this action. (DE 135.)
II. REPORT
Paula Mass filed a motion for summary judgment on February 6, 2017. (DE 135.) On February 22, 2017, the parties stipulated to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Ms. Mass with prejudice and Judge Tarnow approved the stipulation. (DE 153.) As such, Ms. Mass's motion for summary judgment should be denied as moot.
III. PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1273 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as "Objection No. 1," and "Objection No. 2," etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich LR 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as "Response to Objection No. 1," "Response to Objection No. 2," etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response. Dated: February 23, 2017
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on February 23, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti