From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 7, 2017
Civil Case No. 16-10585 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2017)

Summary

rejecting defendant's Rule 41(b) motion where defendant had not filed a motion seeking to compel discovery and/or a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(d)

Summary of this case from McDonald v. Premier Parking Servs.

Opinion

Civil Case No. 16-10585

03-07-2017

BARBIE LOGAN, Plaintiff, v. MGM GRAND DETROIT CASINO, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATTI'S FEBRUARY 6 , 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff Barbie Logan commenced this pro se lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation by her former employer, Defendant MGM Grand Detroit Casino. The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 18.)

On December 22, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As Magistrate Judge Patti summarizes in his February 16, 2017 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny the motion, Defendant seeks dismissal based on Plaintiff's failure to appear for her continued deposition. (ECF No. 27.) Magistrate Judge Patti concludes that none of the factors relevant to deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute weigh in favor of dismissal. (Id. at 4-8.)

At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Patti informs the parties that they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days. (Id. at 8.) No objections have been filed.

The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Patti's well-analyzed R&R and concurs with his conclusions. The Court therefore adopts the R&R.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.

s/ Linda V. Parker

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 7, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 7, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail.

s/ Richard Loury

Case Manager


Summaries of

Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 7, 2017
Civil Case No. 16-10585 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2017)

rejecting defendant's Rule 41(b) motion where defendant had not filed a motion seeking to compel discovery and/or a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(d)

Summary of this case from McDonald v. Premier Parking Servs.
Case details for

Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino

Case Details

Full title:BARBIE LOGAN, Plaintiff, v. MGM GRAND DETROIT CASINO, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 7, 2017

Citations

Civil Case No. 16-10585 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2017)

Citing Cases

McDonald v. Premier Parking Servs.

But Premier has not attempted to obtain lesser sanctions. Courts have declined to proceed directly from a pro…

Henkel of Am., Inc. v. Bell

For hundreds of years, attorneys have cross-examined witnesses without the benefit of a pretrial deposition,…