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)

Download PDF
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?