SPIVEY v. SAGINAW COUNTY, 10-CV-12651. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20120725d79
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2012
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives, issued on July 9, 2012. The Magistrate Judge recommends, among other things, that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons st
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives, issued on July 9, 2012. The Magistrate Judge recommends, among other things, that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons sta..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DIMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives, issued on July 9, 2012. The Magistrate Judge recommends, among other things, that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Court agrees that dismissal is appropriate.1 Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the findings and conclusions of the Court, and dismisses this case with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court has heard nothing from Plaintiff in nearly a year and a half. In fact, of the four defense motions filed throughout the pendency of this case, Plaintiff has responded to none of them, despite court orders prompting Plaintiff to file response briefs. In addition, Plaintiff has refused to engage in discovery, as described in more detail by the Magistrate Judge in his R&R. The Court construes Plaintiff's complete failure to litigate this case as a tacit acknowledgement that he no longer wishes to pursue it.
Source: Leagle
