O'Dell v. Selesky

Filing 28

ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVISS AUGUST 17, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 26), (2) GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS (ECF NO. 4), (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND HE R STATE LAW CLAIMS (ECF NO. 5), (4) REMANDING PLAINTIFFS STATE LAW CLAIMS TO THE 67th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN GENESEE COUNTY, AND (5) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS REMAINING MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 14, 17, 20). Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (SSch)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOVEREIGN O’DELL,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-14378

v.

Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

HOLLY SELESKY,
Stephanie Dawkins Davis
United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant.
_______________________/

ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVIS’S AUGUST 17, 2017
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 26), (2) GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
FEDERAL LAW CLAIMS (ECF NO. 4), (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND HER STATE LAW CLAIMS (ECF NO. 5),
(4) REMANDING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS TO THE 67th
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN GENESEE COUNTY , AND (5) DENYING
AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S REMAINING MOTIONS (ECF NOS. 14, 17, 20)
On August 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge Davis issued a Report and
Recommendation to (1) grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 4) and dismiss Plaintiff’s federal law claims, (2) grant Plaintiff’s motion to
remand her state law claims (ECF No. 5), (3) remand Plaintiff’s state law claims to
state court, and (4) deny as moot Plaintiff’s motions for a stay, for renewed remand,
and for mandamus (ECF Nos. 14, 17, 20).

1

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely
objections from any party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L. R. 72.1(d),
the Court ORDERS that:
(1) Magistrate Judge Davis’s August 17, 2017 Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED;
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s
federal law claims and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s state law claims;
(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand her state law claims is GRANTED;
(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay, Renewed Motion for Remand, and Motion for
Mandamus are DENIED AS MOOT; and
(5) Plaintiff’s federal claims are DISMISSED and her state law claims are
REMANDED to the 67th Judicial District Court in Genesee County.1
1

On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Statement to the Court Notice of Exigent Circumstances and Notice of Intent to Proceed.” (ECF No. 27.)
That filing, which was filed on the same day as Magistrate Judge Davis filed the
Report and Recommendation that is the subject of this Order, neither tolled the 14-day
time period within which Plaintiff (an E-filer well acquainted with the Court’s E-filing
procedures) was permitted to file Objections to that Report and Recommendation, nor
presented meritorious grounds for an extension of time within which to respond to this
Court’s July 13, 2017 Order, which had generously granted Plaintiff a second
opportunity, until July 27, 2017, to file an amended complaint in this action, which
Plaintiff failed to do. (ECF No. 25.)
This Court has been extremely cognizant of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and has granted
her every reasonable leniency. But the Court will not entertain her request for an
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 7, 2017

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
September 7, 2017.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

extension of time that was filed over three weeks after the deadline for filing her
amended complaint had passed. Importantly, the Court’s July 13, 2017 Order held in
abeyance any ruling by the Magistrate Judge on the motions that are now resolved in
the instant Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge withheld ruling on
those motions for over a month, giving Plaintiff ample time to comply with the
Court’s July 13, 2017 directive, which Plaintiff failed to do. Plaintiff’s request for a
further extension of time is denied.
3