Dunham v. Malik et al

Filing 96

ORDER ADOPTING 95 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 18 Motion to Dismiss. (Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint due by 2/10/2014) Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUSSELL PERCY DUNHAM,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-10001

PARVEEN A. MALIK, et al.,

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. PAUL J. KOMIVES

Defendants.
/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives’s Report
and Recommendation of December 10, 2013, (Dkt. 95) recommending that the
Court: (1) deny without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 18); (2) deem
the motion moot to the extent it seeks dismissal of Counts II and III against the
Corizon defendants (see Dkt. 18 at 2 ¶¶ 2, 3); (3) deny the motion without prejudice
to the extent it seeks dismissal of portions of Count I (see Dkt. 18 at 2 ¶ 4); and (4)
require plaintiff to file a more definite statement in the form of a second amended
complaint.
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin
fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendations. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those
portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither

party objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently
review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). The Court has
reviewed and will accept the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of
December 10, 2013, (Dkt. 95) as the findings and conclusions of this court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Komives’s Report
and Recommendation of December 10, 2013, (Dkt. 95) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 18) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, that the motion is MOOT as to Counts II and III
against the Corizon defendants, and that the moved for dismissal of portions of
Count I is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a more definite statement in
the form of a second amended complaint on or before February 10, 2014.
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 10, 2014
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on January 10, 2014, using the
CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
By: s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

2