Ysasi-Huerta v. Secretary of the Department of Transportation, 16-CV-11498. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190320c57
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBERT H. CLELAND , District Judge . This matter was referred to United States Magistrate R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. In his report filed on February 26, 2019, the magistrate judge recommended that this court grant Defendant's [Dkt #21] Motion for Summary Judgment. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived. 1 The court AD
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBERT H. CLELAND , District Judge . This matter was referred to United States Magistrate R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. In his report filed on February 26, 2019, the magistrate judge recommended that this court grant Defendant's [Dkt #21] Motion for Summary Judgment. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived. 1 The court ADO..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. In his report filed on February 26, 2019, the magistrate judge recommended that this court grant Defendant's [Dkt #21] Motion for Summary Judgment. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived.1
The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation for purposes of this Order.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's "Report and Recommendation", Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt# 21] is GRANTED.
FootNotes
1. The failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Source: Leagle
