Salaam El v. Dearborn, City of et al

Filing 27

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ali Salaam El. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk. (THal)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALI SALAAM EL, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF DEARBORN, DEARBORN POLICE, 19th DISTRICT COURT, ALFRED GRZEGOREK, WILLIAM C. HULTGREN, SCOTT NAGY, WILLIAM M. DEBIASI, et al., Defendants. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 20) Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on June 3, 2009. (Dkt. 1). This matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes by District Judge David M. Lawson. (Dkt. 2). Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on October 13, 2009. (Dkt. 20). In that motion, he claims that defendants failed to respond "point for point" to "Affidavit of Facts" or enter any evidence into the record. Accordingly, plaintiff requests summary judgment in his favor for a sum certain of $15,000,000 against each of the defendants. Id. On January 27, 2010, the undersigned issued a report recommending that defendants' motions to dismiss be GRANTED and that plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED. (Dkt. 26). Report and Recommendation Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Salaam-el v. City of Dearborn; 09-12136 Case No. 09-12136 David M. Lawson United States District Judge Michael Hluchaniuk United States Magistrate Judge 1 Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be DENIED as MOOT. The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge. Any objections must be labeled as "Objection No. 1," "Objection No. 2," etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Administrative Order 09-AO-042. The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as "Response to Objection No. 1," 2 Report and Recommendation Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Salaam-el v. City of Dearborn; 09-12136 "Response to Objection No. 2," etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response. Date: January 28, 2010 s/Michael Hluchaniuk Michael Hluchaniuk United States Magistrate Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 28, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic notification to the following: Laurie M. Ellerbrake and John G. Fedynsky, and I certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following non-ECF participant: Ali Salaam El, P.O. Box 35562, Detroit, MI 48235. s/Tammy Hallwood Case Manager U.S. District Court 600 Church Street Flint, MI 48502 (810) 341-7887 3 Report and Recommendation Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Salaam-el v. City of Dearborn; 09-12136

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?