REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) [12]

DAVID R. GRAND, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Corizon Health, Inc.'s1 ("Corizon") Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), which was filed on February 9, 2018. (Doc. #12).

On February 20, 2018, pro se Plaintiff John Smith, who is incarcerated at Chippewa Correctional Facility, filed a Motion to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc. #15). In that motion, Smith requested permission to file an amended complaint "[t]o make all the facts in the complaint clearer." (Id. at 1-2). Smith did not file a copy of his proposed amended complaint, and did not specify the additional facts he believes will make it "clearer" than his initial complaint. He asserted, however, that allowing him to file an amended complaint would not cause "undue prejudice or handicap[]" the defendants. (Id. at 1).

On February 23, 2018, the Court granted Smith's motion, giving deference to Smith's pro se status and noting that his motion "was unnecessary; he could simply have filed his amended complaint on that date because, with Corizon having filed its motion to dismiss on February 9, 2018, Smith had until March 5, 2018, to amend the complaint `once as a matter of course.'" (Doc. #16 at 2) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)). The Court gave Smith until March 12, 2018 to file his amended complaint. (Id. at 3). The Court indicated that upon Smith timely filing an amended complaint, "Corizon's pending motion to dismiss will become moot" and "Corizon would, of course, remain free to file a new dispositive motion based on the amended complaint." (Id.). On March 9, 2018, Smith filed an amended complaint. (Doc. #22).

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Corizon's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. #12) be DENIED AS MOOT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation and Order, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations and the order set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, (1985); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). Only specific objections to this Report and Recommendation will be preserved for the Court's appellate review; raising some objections but not others will not preserve all objections a party may have. See Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2006). Copies of any objections must be served upon the Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections.