Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 178) AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR TRO (Docs. 176, 177) Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 16-12959
HON. AVERN COHN
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, MICHIGAN
JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION, EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DR. NORMAN L. MILLER,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, MICHIGAN
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,
MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD,
CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal Corporation,
LAIDLER & ZIELINSKI, PLLC, CYRIL HALL,
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL, PC.,
and the 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 178)
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR TRO (Docs. 176, 177)
On August 15, 2016, plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
complaint against the above named defendants. As best as can be gleaned, plaintiff
claims violations of state and federal law relating to proceedings before the Michigan
Supreme Court and Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission which resulted in her
removal from the bench upon a finding that she is “mentally unfit.” She also claims
violations of federal law during her employment as a state district court judge, including
Title VII (race, religion, and gender discrimination) and the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Pretrial matters have been referred to a magistrate judge. (Doc. 85).
Plaintiff then filed two “Emergency Ex-Parte Petition[s] to Issue [a] Temporary
Restraining Order,” (Doc. 176-177). The magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation, MJRR, recommending that the motions be denied. (Doc. 178). To
date, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has passed.
The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further
right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373
(6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases
the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the
magistrate judge. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are
ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 4, 2017
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?