From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Caldwell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 12, 2012
Case No. 11-10448 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 11-10448

03-12-2012

CLARENCE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. C. CALDWELL, Defendant.


Honorable David M. Lawson Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,

DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING THE UNITED

STATES MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

Presently before the Court is the report and recommendation issued on February 21, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that this Court deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment, deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and direct the Clerk of the Court to (a) docket the plaintiff's proposed first amended complaint as his first amended complaint, (b) add Raymond D. Booker and Michael Martin as defendants, and (c) prepare and forward the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshal for service of process upon the newly added defendants. Although the Magistrate Judge's report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties' failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the Magistrate Judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [dkt. # 29] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment [dkt. #17] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [dkt. #13] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint [dkt. #27] is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to docket the plaintiff's proposed first amended complaint, attached as an exhibit to his motion for leave to amend, as the plaintiff's first amended complaint.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to add Raymond D. Booker and Michael Martin as defendants to this case.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to process the first amended complaint and issue the summons for service by the United States Marshal Service.

____________

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March 12, 2012.

Deborah R. Tofil

DEBORAH R. TOFIL


Summaries of

Washington v. Caldwell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 12, 2012
Case No. 11-10448 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Washington v. Caldwell

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. C. CALDWELL, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2012

Citations

Case No. 11-10448 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2012)