Manizak v. Doe et al

Filing 40

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 39 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PAUL MANIZAK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-14514
Honorable Denise Page Hood

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#39]
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s
Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 39, filed September 17, 2014] on the
following Motions: Defendant Bryant Dsikowicz’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No.
14, filed February 14, 2014], Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint [Docket
No. 20, filed March 10, 2014], Defendant Bryant Dsikowicz’s Second Motion to
Dismiss [Docket No. 22, filed March 24, 2014], Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File a Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 27, filed April 21, 2014], and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 34,
filed June 5, 2014].
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendant
Osikowicz’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 14] is deemed MOOT; Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend the Complaint [Docket No. 20] is deemed MOOT; Defendant
Osikowicz’s Second Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 22] is deemed MOOT
without prejudice; Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint [Docket No. 27] is deemed MOOT; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
File a Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 34] is GRANTED.
The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Id. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be timely and specific.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d); United States v. Walters,
638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981) (“The filing of objections provides the district
court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to
correct any errors immediately.”)
“[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the
district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but

2

failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” Smith
v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). “An
‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s
suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is”
insufficient. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A
party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal, see
Smith, 829 F.2d at 1373, and relieves the Court from its duty to review the matter
independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Granting
Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint would result in minimal, if any,
prejudice to Defendant Osikowicz since Plaintiff’s claims in the proposed Third
Amended Complaint and First Amended Complaint are substantially similar, but
for the Malicious Prosecution claim. The changes Plaintiff made seem to be
attempts to clarify and further support his claims. Other than having to address the
additional claim, Defendant Osikowicz would not suffer additional prejudice or
any undue burden by the filing by Plaintiff of a Third Amended Complaint.

3

The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge also notified the parties of their
right to “seek review of this Report and Recommendation” and reminded them of
the timeline in which to do so. As previously stated, neither Plaintiff nor
Defendants have filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s September 17,
2014, Report and Recommendation. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Mona K. Majzoub [Docket No. 39, filed September 17, 2014] is ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Osikowicz’s Motion to
Dismiss [Docket No. 14] is deemed MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the
Complaint [Docket No. 20] is deemed MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Osikowicz’s Second Motion
to Dismiss [Docket No. 22] is deemed MOOT without prejudice.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 27] is deemed MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a
Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 34] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: February 5, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record on February 5, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

5