Wieszciecinski v. LaBrenz et al

Filing 15

ORDER Adopting 13 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (SGam)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION PATRICIA L. WIESZCIECINSKI, Plaintiff, v Case No. 14-cv-12728 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris DAVE LABRENZ and KAY COOPER, Defendants. __________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE On July 11, 2014, Plaintiff Patricia Wieszciecinski filed a complaint against Defendants, alleging “Wrongful eviction 1 loss of ALL Real property”. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1. Wieszciecinski further alleged that: His tenant in #8 is making it hard to live there. She is older and on SSI sheltering (3) homeless adults (1) w/child. The husband has flattened 2 of my tires and Kay Broke 3 screeens. also sold me a TV $50.00 that belongs to stoled my grill Noisy & filthy drugs involved[.] [sic throughout] Id. at 3. Wieszciecinski contends that this Court has jurisdiction because the United States Government is a Plaintiff in the case. Id. at 5. On August 15, 2014, Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris issued a report recommending that Wieszciecinski’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Morris noted that although “Plaintiff’s purported basis for this court’s jurisdiction is that the U.S. Government is a Plaintiff . . . the United States is not a party to this action.” Rep. & Rec. 4, ECF No. 13. Moreover, Judge Morris determined that neither federal question jurisdiction nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction existed. Id. Accordingly, Judge Morris recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 13) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Wieszciecinski’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge Dated: September 8, 2014 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each party of record herein by first class U.S. mail on September 8, 2014. s/Tracy A. Jacobs TRACY A. JACOBS -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?