From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maben v. Terhune

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 19, 2015
Case No. 14-12899 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 14-12899

03-19-2015

JAMES MABEN, Plaintiff, v. ANN TERHUNE, ET AL., Defendants.


MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [33]; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT TERHUNE; GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR AND DEFENDANT TOMLINSON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [28]; GRANTING DEFENDANT VANDREW'S MOTION TO DISMISS [16]; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS [22]; DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY [4]; DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION OBJECTING TO CLERK'S DENIAL OF DEFAULT [14]; AND CLOSING CASE

On January 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [33] concerning all pending matters. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. No party filed any objection to the Report and Recommendation.

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [33] and enters its conclusions and findings as those of the Court, with the following addition. On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Motion Objecting to Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge" [17]. The Court is unaware of any authority authorizing such a motion. In any case, Plaintiff's objection has no merit. Plaintiff argues that the Court should not have referred pretrial matters to the Magistrate Judge during the pendency of his Motion Objecting to Clerk's Denial of Default [14], since the Magistrate Judge is not authorized to decide the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). However, Plaintiff ignores § 636(b)(1)(B), which authorizes the Magistrate Judge to submit a report and recommendation on dispositive matters. The Magistrate Judge properly submitted a report and recommendation, which the Court now adopts. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Terhune are dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant County of St. Clair and Defendant Tomlinson's Motion for Summary Judgment [28] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant VanDrew's Motion to Dismiss [16] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss [22] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery [4] and Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to Clerk's Denial of Default [14] are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED.

SO ORDERED. Dated: March 19, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

Maben v. Terhune

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 19, 2015
Case No. 14-12899 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Maben v. Terhune

Case Details

Full title:JAMES MABEN, Plaintiff, v. ANN TERHUNE, ET AL., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 19, 2015

Citations

Case No. 14-12899 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2015)