Cummings v. Flint Police Department et al

Filing 46

ORDER Adopting 45 Report and Recommendation and Granting Defendants Motions 21 39 to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JERRY L. CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. Case Number 23-10514 Honorable David M. Lawson Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti FLINT POLICE DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL TISDALE, JASON PLETCHER, and DOUGLAS SANTIAGO, Defendants. ________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS Presently before the Court is the report issued on January 11, 2024 by Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that the Court grant the defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismiss Counts I, II, and III of the complaint with prejudice, and dismiss Counts IV and V without prejudice. The deadline for filing objections to the report has passed, and no objections have been filed. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n 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 matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 45) is ADOPTED, and the defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF No. 21, 39) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Counts I, II, and III of the complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Counts IV and V are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge Dated: January 6, 2024 -2-

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?