Searcy et al v. Macomb County Jail et al

Filing 265

ORDER Denying Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Report and Recommendation 264 , Accepting Report and Recommendation 261 , Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 254 , and Denying as Moot Plaintiff's Motion for Relief 247 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAVELLE SEARCY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 10-11242
Honorable Denise Page Hood

v.
COUNTY OF MACOMB,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,
and
DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response/Objections to a Report and Recommendation seeking an extension of
45 to 60 days to file Objections. The Court denies the motion since the Court agrees
with the Report and Recommendation and extending the time to file Objections
unnecessarily delays this matter further. It is noted that the Magistrate Judge
essentially ruled in Plaintiff’s favor by recommending the Court deny Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss. Because Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend the time to File
Objections, the Court finds Plaintiff has not waived his right to file objections. The

Court addresses the merits of the Report and Recommendation below.
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C.§ 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c). The
Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate.” Id. In order to preserve the right to appeal
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the Report and
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P 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. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932 F2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that her findings and conclusions are correct in that the law of the case doctrine
is invoked. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that prior decisions in this
litigation have found that Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state a claim for
municipal liability against the only remaining Defendant Macomb County. Defendant
has since filed an Answer in this matter and a Scheduling Order has been issued
2

relating to discovery as to the claims against the newly-added and only remaining
Defendant Macomb County.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s Report and
Recommendation (No. 261) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Grant Relief (No. 247)
is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant County of Macomb’s Motion to
Dismiss (No. 254) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time
to File Objections to Report and Recommendation (No. 264) is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: March 20, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 20, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3