Flakes v. Unknown Party

Filing 29

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EDDIE FLAKES, JR., Plaintiff, File No. 1:11-CV-640 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Treasurer of the United States, et al., Defendants. / ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On August 10, 2011, Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff Eddie Flakes, Jr.’s complaint, as amended, be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 13.) This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The R&R was duly served on Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the R&R, and the deadline for doing so has expired. Plaintiff has filed a number of letters, affidavits, and a supplement to the complaint. (See Dkt. Nos. 14-25.) None of these filings raise any specific objections to the R&R. Moreover, none of these filings purport to address the issue of this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. On review, the Court concludes that the 1 R&R has correctly determined that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the August 10, 2011, R&R is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint, as amended and supplemented, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dated: September 8, 2011 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?