Nalls v. Napolean

Filing 69

ORDER adopting 46 Report and Recommendation; finding as moot 50 Report and Recommendation and finding as moot 16 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 11-12670 KENYATTA NALLS, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW Plaintiff, v. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD BENNY N. NAPOLEAN, ET AL., Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [50], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR MONETARY DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND MOOTING PREVIOUS R&RS [46], [16] AND OBJECTION [21] On January 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [50] recommending that the Court dismiss sua sponte Plaintiff’s claims in his Amended Complaint [42] for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities. The time to file objections has passed and no objection to the Amended R&R [50] was filed. The Amended R&R [50] replaces the first R&R [46], which the Magistrate Judge entered on the same day. The previous R&R [16] and Defendants’ Objection thereto [21] pertained to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint [1]. Consequently, the R&Rs [46], [16] and Objection [21] are moot. 1/2 The Court has reviewed the record in this case. The Amended R&R [50] of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims in his Amended Complaint [42] for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&Rs [16], [46] and Objection [21] are MOOT. SO ORDERED. s/Arthur J. Tarnow Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge Dated: April 27, 2015 2/2

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?