Price v. Milmar Food Group, LLC, 17-cv-13011. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180913h23
Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [23] JUDITH E. LEVY , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen's Report and Recommendation recommending the Court GRANT defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8) and second filed motion to dismiss 1 (Dkt. 16). (Dkt. 23.) The parties were required to file specific written objections within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d). No objections were filed. The Court has nevertheless carefully r
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [23] JUDITH E. LEVY , District Judge . Before the Court is Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen's Report and Recommendation recommending the Court GRANT defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8) and second filed motion to dismiss 1 (Dkt. 16). (Dkt. 23.) The parties were required to file specific written objections within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d). No objections were filed. The Court has nevertheless carefully re..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [23]
JUDITH E. LEVY, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen's Report and Recommendation recommending the Court GRANT defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 8) and second filed motion to dismiss1 (Dkt. 16). (Dkt. 23.) The parties were required to file specific written objections within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d). No objections were filed. The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly,
The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 23) is ADOPTED;
Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkts. 8, 16) is GRANTED;
Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
Pursuant to 28. U.S.C. 1367(c)(3), plaintiff's state law claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
Plaintiff's filing, to any extent it could be construed as a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment,2 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff re-filed his complaint (Dkt. 14) and defendant subsequently re-filed its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. (Dkt. 16.) Plaintiff's second filed complaint is identical to his first, excluding exhibits which Judge Whalen did not consider in his Report and Recommendation based on Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). Defendant's second filed motion is identical except for an explanation for its second filing. (Dkt. 16 at 1.)
2. Judge Whalen treated plaintiff's "Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment" (Dkt. 10) as plaintiff's response to defendant's motion. The Court agrees that plaintiff's motion in substance was his response to defendant's motion.
Source: Leagle
