Opinion
2:23-cv-10597
02-22-2024
MADALYN M. SOULLIERE, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDWAY, LLC., Defendant.
Mark A. Goldsmith, District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S “MOTION TO CLOSE AND SEAL” (ECF No. 24)
KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN, United States Magistrate Judge
This is a case involving breach of contract, tort, and federal law claims under unspecified statutes. Plaintiff Madalyn M. Soulliere (Soulliere), proceeding pro se, has sued defendant Speedway, LLC (Speedway) for various occurrences during her employment. (ECF No. 6, Amended Complaint). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), all pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned. (ECF No. 12).
Soulliere has filed a “Motion to Close and Seal,” stating that the parties have settled. (ECF No. 24). Speedway filed a response, affirming that the case “has been resolved and can be closed and dismissed with prejudice.” (ECF No. 25, PageID.101). Based on the parties' filings, the case has been resolved.
Speedway also points out that Soulliere included confidential information in her motion. (ECF No. 25). Speedway has attached a redacted version of the confidential information that will remain on the docket. (ECF No. 25, PageID.103-104). The Court will enter a separate order sealing Soulliere's motion to protect the confidential information.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Soulliere's motion to close be GRANTED and that the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation. Any objections must be filed within 14 days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 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). Under Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.