Moralez v. City of Jackson Police Department et al

Filing 34

ORDER Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation Dismissing Defendants and finding as moot 7 Motion to Dismiss filed by Adam Brown, Michael Overton, Karen A Coffman, Amanda Riska, Richard N Laflamme, Joseph S Filip, and 12 Motion to Dismiss filed by Dannis M Diffenderfer, Elmer Hitt, David Taylor, Gilbert Carlson. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ABELARDO MORALEZ,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-12302
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

v.

Michael Hluchaniuk
United States Magistrate Judge

CITY OF JACKSON POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL HLUCHANIUK’S
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 16)
On November 21, 2013, Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk issued a Report and
Recommendation to Dismiss Defendants Adam Brown, Karen A. Coffman, Joseph S. Philip,
Richard N. Laflamm, Michael Overton, Amanda Riska, Gilbert Carlson, Dennis M. Diffenderfer,
Elmer Hitt and David Taylor pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and to terminate these Defendants’
pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 7, 12) as moot. (ECF No. 16, Report and Recommendation.)
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely objections
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d), the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 16), DISMISSES these Defendants with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R.

1

Civ. P. 41(b), and terminates these Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 7, 12) as MOOT.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 30, 2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party
of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on December 30, 2013.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

1

On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Interlocutory Appeal,” directed not to this
Court but to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, that appears to complain generally about Magistrate
Judge Hluchaniuk’s November 21, 2013 Order Denying Motion to Disqualify and for Submission
of Evidence to Grand Jury (ECF No. 15) and about the Magistrate Judge’s November 21, 2013
Report and Recommendation Regarding Rule 41(b) Dismissals (ECF No. 16). Even if intended as
objections to either the Magistrate Judge’s Order and/or Report and Recommendation, this filing is
untimely and lacking the specificity required of valid objections. See Smith v. Detroit Federation
of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (“[A] party must file timely objections
with the district court to avoid waiving appellate review.”) (emphasis in original); Mira v. Marshall,
806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo
review under the statute).
2