Carter et al v. Oakland County Probation Department
ORDER Accepting 15 Report and Recommendation, Order Granting 6 Motion to Dismiss by Defendant, Order Dismissing Action and Order Denying any Appeal In Forma Pauperis. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
STARELLEN CARTER and
Civil Action No. 12-11091
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
OAKLAND COUNTY PROBATION
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
ORDER DENYING ANY APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon’s Report and
Recommendation filed October 5, 2012 [Doc. # 15]. The time to file Objections has passed and no
Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed to date.
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). As Plaintiffs filed the complaint pro
se, the Court will interpret their pleadings liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 499 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that his
findings and conclusions are correct. Liberally construing Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant Oakland County Probation Department must be dismissed
because it is not a legal entity subject to suit. The action must be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon’s Report and Recommendation
[Doc. # 15, 10/5/2012] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of facts and
conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant [Doc. # 6,
4/23/2012] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Oakland County Probation Department
DISMISSED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and certified that any appeal from this decision would be
frivolous and not taken in good faith. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
Dated: October 31, 2012
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
12-11091 Carter, et al v. Oakland County Probation Department
Order Accepting Report & Recommendation, etc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
October 31, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?