Richardson v. Falk

Full title: LARRY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. NATHAN FALK, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Oct 7, 2024

2:23-cv-10488 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2024)

Opinion

2:23-cv-10488

10-07-2024

LARRY RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. NATHAN FALK, Defendant

Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge

Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge

On September 10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris issued a report recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) be granted in part and denied in part. Neither party filed objections within the fourteen day period pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). They therefore have forfeited their right to appeal Judge Morris's findings. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530-31 (6^th Cir. 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Moreover, there is no prejudicial clear error in the report.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39) is ADOPTED.

Further, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Further it is ORDERED that Discovery is REOPENED for 45 days.

Further, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge is DIRECTED to issue a new scheduling order in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete discovery as soon as practicable and before the deadline set by the Magistrate Judge.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is DIRECTED to subject himself to be deposed by Defendant.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that any additional discovery violation will result in the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice under Civil Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.

This order does not close the above-captioned case.