Opinion
Civil Action No.: 19-11531
01-02-2020
LATAUSHA SIMMONS, Plaintiff v. CITY OF WARREN, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY [ECF NO. 4]
On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff LaTausha Simmons filed a complaint against the City of Warren, its police department and some of its officials, and against the County of Warren, its Sheriff's department and some of its officials. [ECF No. 1]. Simmons contemporaneously filed a request to stay the newly-filed action pending the outcome of an appeal in state appellate court. [ECF No. 4]. The Honorable Laurie J. Michelson referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. [ECF No. 7].
"[T]he burden is on the party seeking the stay to show that there is pressing need for delay, and that neither the other party nor the public will suffer harm from entry of the order." Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). Simmons offers no facts or argument to support her request for stay, nor does she justify requesting a stay without providing defendants with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. [ECF No. 4]. She has not sustained her burden for showing that a stay is warranted.
The Court thus recommends that Simmons's request for stay [ECF No. 4] be DENIED without prejudice.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge Dated: January 2, 2020
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).
Each objection must be labeled as "Objection #1," "Objection #2," etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in the same order and labeled as "Response to Objection #1," "Response to Objection #2," etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 2, 2020.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 2, 2020.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager