Coles v. Scion Steel, Inc. et al

Filing 72

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DECEMBER 28, 2022 70 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 59 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)

Case 2:20-cv-12606-LVP-CI ECF No. 72, PageID.1522 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GAYLAND BRION COLES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 20-12606
Honorable Linda V. Parker

SCION STEEL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECEMBER 28,
2022, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The action arises from an alleged breach of a March 28, 2019
Confidentiality Settlement Agreement resolving claims brough in another lawsuit.
See Coles v. Scion Steel, Inc., Civil Case No. 18-13754. Gayland Brion Coles
(“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro se employment lawsuit against Scion Steel, Inc.,
Micky Tschihart, Tom McCall, and Jeff Michalski (collectively “Defendants”) on
September 16, 2020. Plaintiff also alleges that subsequent to the resolution of the
earlier lawsuit, Defendants retaliated against him for filing the prior lawsuit and
gave non-African American employees more favorable work positions and
assignments.
The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. for all
pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive

Case 2:20-cv-12606-LVP-CI ECF No. 72, PageID.1523 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation
on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 39.) On
September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 59.)
On December 28, 2022, Magistrate Judge Ivy issued a report and recommendation
(R&R) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment as premature because the parties have not engaged in discovery. (ECF
No. 70.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Ivy informs the parties that
they must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days. (Id. at Pg ID
1514.) He further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id. (citations
omitted).) Neither party filed objections.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Ivy. The Court therefore adopts the R&R.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
59) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 17, 2023

2

Case 2:20-cv-12606-LVP-CI ECF No. 72, PageID.1524 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, January 17, 2023, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager

3