Smith v. Heyns et al
ORDER denying 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 22 Motion for TRO; granting 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 42 Motion for Judgment; denying 41 43 Motion for Judgment; denying 58 Motion ; adopting 60 Report and Recommendation ; denying 12 Motion for TRO; denying 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 12-11373
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
Daniel Heyns, et al.,
ORDER AND OPINION OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS  AND
GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS  TO THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S JANUARY 10, 2013 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ,
ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND REFERRING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Before the Court are Plaintiff Frederick Smith’s objections and Defendants' objections
to the magistrate judge’s January 10, 2013 report and recommendation. (Dkt. 66, 64, 60.)
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court:
deny Plaintiff's two motions for preliminary injunctions (dkt. 12, 22);
grant Defendants' two motions for summary judgment (dkt. 19, 32); and
deny Plaintiff's four motions for judgment (dkt. 41, 42, 43, 58).
The magistrate judge stated, if the Court accepts the report and recommendation, that the
following claims would remain pending: (1) all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Morrill
and Dreyer; (2) Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims against all of the defendants;
and (3) any state law claims Plaintiff is asserting against all of the defendants. (RR at 30.)
Plaintiff has filed objections and requests that the Court reject the entire report and
recommendation. (Dkt. 66.)
Defendants Heyns, Straub, Combs, Brown, DeBoer, Price, Heinritz, Bull-Ehinger and
Luckey also objected to the report and recommendation. They object on the basis of the
claims that the magistrate judge recommending allowing to proceed. The Court grants
Defendants part of their request--the Court permits Defendants to file an additional motion
for summary judgment on these claims. The Court orders Defendants to file this additional
motion for summary judgment by April 19, 2013 at 12 p.m.
The Court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation as well
as Plaintiff's objections de novo. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge and accepts
and adopts the report and recommendation.
The Court finally refers Plaintiff's second motion for leave to appeal, which the Court
construes as a motion to amend the complaint, to the magistrate judge. (Dkt. 65)
Being fully advised in the premises, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections,
GRANTS IN PART Defendants' objections, and ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation.
The Court therefore:
denies Plaintiff's two motions for preliminary injunctions (dkt. 12, 22);
grants Defendants' two motions for summary judgment (dkt. 19, 32); and
denies Plaintiff's four motions for judgment (dkt. 41, 42, 43, 58).
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: March 20, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on March 20, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol A. Hemeyer
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?