Bennett v. Kandulski et al
Filing
24
ORDER Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation, Granting 14 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Robert Lacy, Joshua Buskirk, Adam Kandulski. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID TODD BENNET, SR.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-14628
v.
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
ADAM KANDULSKI, M.D., et al.,
R. Steven Whalen
United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN’S
FEBRUARY 8, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 23), (2)
GRANTING DEFENDANTS KANDULSKI, BUSKIRK AND LACYS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS (ECF NO. 14), (3) DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE AND (4)
VACATING THE COURT’S APRIL 9, 2012 ORDER OF REFERENCE
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHALEN (ECF NO. 15)
On February 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen entered a Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 23) to Grant Defendants Kandulski, Buskirk and Lacys’ Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) and to Dismiss this action with prejudice. Having reviewed the
Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely objections from either party under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L. R. 72.1(d), the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation, GRANTS Defendants Kandulski, Buskirk and Lacys’ Motion to Dismiss
and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE.
1
The Court further VACATES its April 10, 2015 Order referring all pretrial matters
in this case to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 29, 2016
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 February 29, 2016.
s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager
2
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?