Wieszciecinski v. LaBrenz et al

Filing 15

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

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-