Hoosier v. Liu et al

Filing 72

OPINION AND ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 68 to Deny Defendants Wendy LIU, N.P., Badawi Abdellatif, M.D., Kim Farris, P.A., and Karen Rhodes, D.O.'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 57 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWAYNE HOOSIER,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16-10688
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
WENDY LIU, et al.,
Defendants.
/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#68] TO DENY DEFENDANTS WENDY LIU, N.P.,
BADAWI ABDELLATIF, M.D., KIM FARRIS, P.A., AND KAREN
RHODES, D.O.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
41(b) [#57]

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 68)
filed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti to deny Defendants Wendy Liu, N.P.,
Badawi Abdellatif, M.D., Kim Farris, P.A., and Karen Rhodes, D.O.’s
(collectively, the “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). (Doc # 57) No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and
DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The background facts of this matter are adequately set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court adopts them here.
1

The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right
to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to
the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report
and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
155 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09
(6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds that his findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the factors considered for dismissal do not operate in
Defendants’ favor.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc # 68) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wendy Liu, Badawi
Abdellatif, Kim Farris, and Karen Rhodes’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) (Doc # 57) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: January 31, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on January 31, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3