Bain v. Willis et al
Filing
24
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 23 ) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 15 ) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 21 ). Signed by District Judge Brandy R. McMillion. (LHos)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LINDA BAIN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-cv-10090
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
v.
Mag. Elizabeth A. Stafford
LOUTRICIA WILLIS, et. al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 23) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 15) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 21)
Plaintiff Linda Bain brings this pro se employment discrimination action
against the Michigan Department of Labor, Michigan Civil Service Department, and
several individual defendants, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Michigan’s
Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); and she also advances a state-law claim
for assault. See ECF No. 7.
This matter was originally assigned to the Honorable Matthew F. Leitman,
who referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. ECF No.
6. This case was reassigned to the undersigned on April 2, 2024. Administrative
1
Order 24-AO-007. On April 9, 2024, this Court re-referred all pretrial matters to
Magistrate Judge Stafford. ECF No. 13. Pending before the Court is Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21).
On September 25, 2024, in a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss
and deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend. ECF No. 23. At the end of the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek review of his recommendation, they
had to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R.
Id. at PageID.547-548. As of the date of this order, October 24, 2024—29 days since
the Magistrate Judge filed the R&R—neither party has filed objections to the R&R
or contacted the Court to ask for more time to file objections.
The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see
also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 957-58 (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that a party’s
failure to timely object to a report and recommendation allows a court to accept the
recommendation “without expressing any views on the merits of the magistrate’s
conclusions”). Similarly, failure to object to an R&R forfeits any further right to
appeal. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that a
party forfeits their right to appeal by failing to timely file objections to an R&R).
2
Accordingly, because neither party objected to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Defendants’
and Plaintiff’s motions (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTED.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No.
21) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7, 8) is DISMISSED.
This is a final order that closes the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2024
s/Brandy R. McMillion
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
United States District Judge
3
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?