Rankin et al

Filing 60

ORDER Adopting 57 Report and Recommendation regarding 52 Motion to Reopen Case, Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

Case 5:06-cv-13726-JEL-MJH ECF No. 60 filed 06/26/20

PageID.553

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re:
William A. Rankin and
Shirley A. Rankin,

Consolidated Case No. 06-13726

_______________________________/

Bankr. Case No. 02-30596
Chapter 7
Walter Shapero
United States Bankruptcy Judge

William A. Rankin and
Shirley A. Rankin

Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Debtors.

Appellants
v.

Mag. Judge Michael J.
Hluchaniuk

Brian Levan and Associates, P.C.;
Commonwealth Land Title Ins.
Co., a foreign corporation; Joel R.
Dault; Progressive Title Ins.
Agency Co., a Michigan
Corporation; Paul Wood, deceased;
Karla Volke-Wood,
Appellees
Collene K. Corcorian,
Trustee—
Appellee.
________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [57]

Case 5:06-cv-13726-JEL-MJH ECF No. 60 filed 06/26/20

PageID.554

Page 2 of 3

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court deny
Debtors/Appellants William A. Rankin and Shirley A. Rankin’s motion to
reopen the case (ECF No. 52). (ECF No. 57.)
The parties were required to file specific written objections within
14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d). No
objections were filed. Instead, Debtors/Appellants filed a response to the
R&R, in which they sought an extension “past March 31, 2020” because
“of this corona virus that is spreading across the world,” and because
“[a]ccording to the news Courts will be closed for 3 weeks.” (ECF No. 59,
PageID.550.)

Debtors/Appellants,

although

pro se, have

proven

themselves very capable of advocacy and of meeting deadlines
throughout the years that this case has been pending. Although the
physical courthouse has been closed due to the pandemic, the closure has
not stopped the work of the Court. Moreover, there is nothing about
preparing objections to the R&R that would require travel or violation of
any of the Executive Orders set forth by the Governor of Michigan during
the pandemic. Indeed, the request for additional time was submitted

Case 5:06-cv-13726-JEL-MJH ECF No. 60 filed 06/26/20

PageID.555

Page 3 of 3

during that time. Accordingly, Debtors/Appellants’ request for an
extension is denied.
The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the R&R and
concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly,
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 57) is ADOPTED;
Plaintiff’s motion to re-open the case (ECF No. 52) is DENIED; and
Plaintiff’s response seeking an extension (ECF No. 59) is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2020
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 26, 2020.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

By failing to object to the R&R, the parties have waived any further right of
appeal. United States v. Archibald, 589 F.3d 289, 295–96 (6th Cir. 2009).
1