Lamie v. Smith et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 42 , defendant's motion to dismiss 9 is denied; plaintiff's motion to strike 35 is denied; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ERVIN JOSEPH LAMIE, JR.,
GREG SMITH, et al.,
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a report and recommendation (R&R ECF No. 42) issued by the
magistrate judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends (1) denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 9) on the ground of res judicata; (2) denying Defendants’ supplemental motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 17), but amending the caption to include “P.W. Services, Inc. As Conservator for Muriel
LaMie,” in lieu of Muriel Lamie, with summons to issue; and (3) denying Plaintiff’s motion to strike
and for entry of default judgment (ECF No. 35).
The parties are all appearing pro se. After the R&R issued, Defendants filed a document in
which they state they have no objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff filed objections to
two of the three recommendations. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff objects to the recommendation to alter
the caption. Plaintiff also objects to the recommendation that his motion to strike be denied. After
being served with a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen
days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to
which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Having reviewed the record, including the R&R, objections, and relevant documents, the
Court finds the facts in the report supported by the record. The Court finds no support, factually or
legally, for Plaintiff’s objections.
Therefore, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42) is ADOPTED as the opinion of
A. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED;
B. Defendants’ supplemental motion (ECF No. 17) to dismiss is DENIED;
C. The caption for this action shall be amended placing “P.W. Services, Inc. As Conservator
for Muriel LaMie,” in lieu of “Muriel Lamie”;
D. P.W. Services, Inc., as conservator for Muriel LaMie, shall be served with a copy of the
summons and complaint;1
E. Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 35) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 23, 2012
/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
Chief United States District Judge
Because P.W. Services, Inc. is a corporation, it will have to be represented by counsel.
“The rule of this circuit is that a corporation cannot appear in federal court except through an
attorney.” Doherty v. American Motors Corp., 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Ginger
v. Cohn, 426 F.2d 1385, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970) and U.S. v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244,
1245 (6th Cir. 1969)); see Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council,
506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993) (“It has been the law for a better part of two centuries, for
example, that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.”