Shaya v. Belcastro et al

Filing 167

ORDER to Appear and Concerning Hearing Requirements re 151 and 156 Objections to the 149 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. (Objection to R&R Hearing set for 8/17/2016 at 10:00 AM before District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. **PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR IMPORTANT DETAILS**) Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVE SHAYA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-11112
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
DAVID BELCASTRO, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER TO APPEAR AND CONCERNING HEARING REQUIREMENTS
On June 10, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge in this action issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant summary
judgment in favor of all Defendants (the “R&R”). (See ECF #149.) Plaintiff filed
timely objections to the R&R (the “Objections”).1 (See ECF ## 151, 156.) The
Court has reviewed the R&R and the Objections and has outstanding questions
regarding Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R numbered 1, 2, 5, and 9.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a
hearing concerning the Objections at the United States District Court, Theodore
Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, 48226,
1

Plaintiff originally filed objections to the R&R on June 24, 2016. (See ECF
#151.) Plaintiff then filed an amended set of objections to the R&R in which he
corrected errors with the original set of objections he filed with the Court. (See
ECF #156.) The Court treats Plaintiff’s amended objections as the operative
objections in this Order.
1

Room 242, at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 17, 2016. The hearing shall be
limited to objections 1, 2, 5, and 9. With respect to those objections, IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall be prepared to:
1. Objection No. 1: Identify evidence in the record that bears on whether any
alleged transfer of code enforcement duties away from Plaintiff amounted to
an adverse employment action.
2. Objection No. 2: Identify evidence in the record that the alleged harassment
of Plaintiff by Nathan Izydorek was based on a characteristic that is
protected under the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.
3. Objection No. 5: Identify evidence in the record from which a jury could
find Defendants Adam Tardif or Andy Mileski knowingly made false
statements or swore to false information in Plaintiff’s misdemeanor
appearance ticket or their respective police reports.
4. Objection No. 9: Discuss whether Plaintiff’s alleged statement to Defendant
Maxwell Garbarino – namely, “I had imparted during my communication
with . . . Garbarino that I believed that the inaction of Tardif was retaliatory
due to my prior complaint about his conduct in having outside employment
and his conduct in incident involving the broken tail light” – is sufficient to
show that Defendant Garbarino (1) had knowledge that Plaintiff engaged in
conduct protected by the First Amendment, and (2) acted (or failed to act) in
2

retaliation against Plaintiff based on that knowledge.

Additionally the

parties shall be prepared to identify any other evidence in the record
regarding Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant
Garbarino.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 3, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on August 3, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3