Goode v. Mercy Memorial Hospital

Filing 54

ORDER adopting 53 Report and Recommendation, granting 45 Renewed Motion to Dismiss, finding as moot 29 Motion to Strike; finding as moot 30 Motion; finding as moot 31 Motion to Withdraw; finding as moot 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANNIE PATRICE GOODE,
Case No. 11-10037
Plaintiff,
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
MERCY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL HLUCHANIUK

Defendant.
/

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION [51] TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
ORDER [50]; ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [53]; GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COOPERATE
WITH DISCOVERY [45]; AND DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS [29, 30,
31, 36] AS MOOT

Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint [Doc. #1] on January 4, 2011. On
August 24, 2011, the Court issued an Order [13] staying the case pending
resolution of the Court’s request for pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff. On
April 15, 2014, the Court issued an Order [16] lifting the stay due to the failure of
reasonable efforts to secure pro bono counsel. Plaintiff proceeded pro se, but
discovery soon stalled. Defendant moved to dismiss the case in June 2014 due to
Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in the discovery process. The Magistrate Judge
1

declined to dismiss the case in an Order [42] dated December 29, 2014, instead
ordering Plaintiff to proceed with her deposition in a certain manner.

The

Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiff that failure to proceed as directed could result in
dismissal of the case as a discovery sanction.
On February 17, 2015, Defendant filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to Cooperate with Discovery [45], citing Plaintiff’s continued failure to
cooperate when deposed and to produce requested documents. Plaintiff filed a
Response [47] on February 24, 2015, and Defendant filed a Reply [48] on March 3,
2015. On April 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order [50] holding the
motion in abeyance with respect to dismissal but ordering Plaintiff to show cause
why she should not be held in contempt for noncompliance with the Magistrate
Judge’s earlier order; to produce certain documents; and to sign a release for her
Social Security records.

The Magistrate Judge again warned Plaintiff that

noncompliance could result in dismissal of the case as a discovery sanction. On
April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Objection [51] to the Magistrate Judge’s order.
On April 27, 2015, Defendant filed a Notice [52] of Plaintiff’s
noncompliance with the Magistrate Judge’s order. On May 7, 2015, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [53], recommending that the Court
grant Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss [45] due to Plaintiff’s continued
2

failure to cooperate in the discovery process. Plaintiff has not filed an objection to
the Report and Recommendation.
A district court may set aside a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive
pretrial matter if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). Though
titled as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order [50] of April 10, 2015,
Plaintiff’s Objection [51] makes no mention of the substance of the order. Since
she does not respond to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, and the analysis is correct,
Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the analysis is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. The Court therefore overrules Plaintiff’s Objection [51].
As noted, Plaintiff has filed no objection to the Report and Recommendation
[53]. The Court having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation is
hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order
[51] is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Cooperate with Discovery [45] is GRANTED. This case is
DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v).
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions [29, 30, 31,
36] are DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

4