Colston v. Liebeck et al
Filing
98
ORDER Adopting 97 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK COLSTON and
TAMMIE JANIS
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 15-14314
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
Hon. Mona K. Majzoub
v.
ROBERT LIEBECK, STEVE
LIEBECK, and CHELSEA
HOMETOWN SERVICES,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(DKT. 97)
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Majzoub’s January 29, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 97,
recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Default Judgment (Dkts.
90, 91, and 92) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
through the entry of a default judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $40,000.
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 a report and recommendation. 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 will therefore accept
the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation of January 29, 2018
as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge
Majzoub’s Report and Recommendation of August 29, 2017 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 22, 2018
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of record were served on March 22, 2018.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager
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?