Filed: Jul. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 05, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARK A. RANDON, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Vishnamptet Thyagarajan, M.D.'s ("Defendant Raja") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 132). Defendant Raja asks the Court to grant his motion, enter summary judgment in his favor, and dismiss Plaintiff's claims against him. Plaintiff responded on February 7, 2012. (Dkt. No. 145). Plaintiff consents to the dismissal of all claims against
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARK A. RANDON, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Vishnamptet Thyagarajan, M.D.'s ("Defendant Raja") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 132). Defendant Raja asks the Court to grant his motion, enter summary judgment in his favor, and dismiss Plaintiff's claims against him. Plaintiff responded on February 7, 2012. (Dkt. No. 145). Plaintiff consents to the dismissal of all claims against D..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MARK A. RANDON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Vishnamptet Thyagarajan, M.D.'s ("Defendant Raja") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 132). Defendant Raja asks the Court to grant his motion, enter summary judgment in his favor, and dismiss Plaintiff's claims against him. Plaintiff responded on February 7, 2012. (Dkt. No. 145). Plaintiff consents to the dismissal of all claims against Defendant Raja. (Dkt. No. 145; Exhibit A, Affidavit of Plaintiff). Accordingly, this Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Defendant Raja's motion be GRANTED, and the claims against Defendant Raja alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 64) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which 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. See 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). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.
Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the opposing party may file a response. The response shall be no more than 20 pages in length unless, by motion and order, the page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address each issue contained within the objections specifically and in the same order raised.
