Opinion
1:19cv02786
12-03-2020
Stefani Rossi Reo, Plaintiff, v. Martin Lindstedt, Defendant.
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, JUDGE.
SEPARATE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S “COUNTERCLAIMS”
THOMAS M. PARKER, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On July 27, 2020, plaintiff, Stefani Rossi Reo (“Reo”), filed a motion for summary judgment against defendant Martin Lindstedt (“Lindstedt”). ECF Doc. 26. On December 1, 2020, I issued a report and recommendation on Reo's motion for summary judgment related to the claims she has asserted against Lindstedt. ECF Doc. 39. However, my report and recommendation did not include any recommendation on the “counterclaims” asserted by or attempted to be asserted by Lindstedt against Reo. If the court accepts my recommendations, there will remain claims pending in this case, as will the issues of damages. However, if the court would also like to address the issue of Lindstedt's counterclaims against Stefani Reo, I submit the following recommendation:
Lindstedt is acting pro se in this case and it is entirely unclear what claim (if any) he has actually asserted against Reo in his purported “counterclaim.” ECF Doc. 13. At paragraph 8 of Reo's answer to the counterclaim, she denied that Lindstedt “has stated any claim upon which relief can be granted.” ECF Doc. 23 at 2. Even so, when she served requests for admission upon Lindstedt in May 2020, Reo included the following requests:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26: Please admit that your counterclaim or claims pending against Plaintiff Stefani Rossi Reo, if any, are wholly lacking in merit.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27: Please admit that your counterclaim or claims pending against Plaintiff Stefani Rossi Reo, if any, are without any evidentiary or factual basis.ECF Doc. 26 at 11-12.
As already fully explained in my report and recommendation on Reo's claims against Lindstedt (ECF Doc. 39), Lindstedt did not respond to Reo's requests for admission in a timely fashion; he did not move to withdraw his admissions; and Reo would be prejudiced if the court were to permit Lindstedt to withdraw his admissions at this time. Thus, for the reasons fully stated in my separate report and recommendation, which I incorporate herein, and because, by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 36, Lindstedt has admitted that his counterclaim against Reo has no basis in law or fact, I also recommend that the Court Grant Reo's motion for summary judgment on Lindstedt's “counterclaim” against her.
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this document. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).