Horn v. Robert Bosch Automotive Steering LLC

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 24 Motion to Dismiss - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Download PDF
Case 2:19-cv-10336-NGE ECF No. 30, PageID.555 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CODIE HORN, Plaintiff, v. No. 19-10336 Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds ROBERT BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE STEERING LLC, Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [24] This is an employment discrimination case brought by pro se plaintiff Codie Horn against his former employer, Robert Bosch Automotive Steering LLC. On June 1, 2020, Magistrate Judge David Grand issued a report and recommendation in this matter, recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part without prejudice. (ECF No. 20.) Neither party objected to that report and recommendation, and the Court accepted and adopted it in an opinion and order issued on July 8, 2020. (ECF No. 22.) Shortly thereafter, the Court was informed that the parties had settled this case. A docket notation instructed the parties to submit a stipulated order of dismissal within thirty days. No order was presented to the Court. On September 23, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, requesting the Court enter an order dismissing this case, because the parties have executed a confidential release and settlement agreement and payment has been tendered pursuant to that agreement. (ECF No. 24.) An order was issued informing Plaintiff that if he wishes to oppose Defendant’s motion, he must file a response by Case 2:19-cv-10336-NGE ECF No. 30, PageID.556 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 2 October 14, 2020.1 (ECF No. 25.) To date, however, no response has been entered on the docket.2 Because the parties have settled the remaining claims in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses this case with prejudice. SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: November 20, 2020 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on November 20, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager     1 A copy of the order requiring a response served on Plaintiff by mail was returned to the Court as undeliverable, (ECF No. 28), but the order was also served on him via email. 2 Plaintiff emailed a member of chambers’ staff a response to Defendant’s motion. Plaintiff was informed that his response must be filed through the Clerk’s office, but he did not comply with that directive. Even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s response, however, it would not change the disposition of this case. Plaintiff acknowledges that the parties settled the case but alleges that Defendant breached the settlement agreement. The alleged breach of a settlement agreement is an independent claim that can be raised in an appropriate forum but is not a reason not to dismiss this case with prejudice.  

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?