Weatherspoon #471817 v. Williams et al

Filing 105

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 93 re 77 , 76 AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 103 ; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:17-CV-40

v.

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

CAROL WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On August 27, 2019, Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat issued a Report and
Recommendation (R & R) (ECF No. 93) recommending that the Court grant remaining Defendants’
motions for summary judgment and dismiss this case with prejudice. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved
for a 90-day extension of time in which to prepare and file objections to the R & R. (ECF No. 94.)
The Court granted the motion in part, concluding that 90 days was unreasonable but that an
extension of time to October 4, 2019, provided Plaintiff with ample time to prepare and file his
objections. (ECF No. 96.) Plaintiff did not file objections within the allowed time. Instead, he filed
another motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 99), which the Court denied on October 1, 2019.
(ECF No. 102.) In denying the motion, the Court noted that it had stated in its previous order that
“[n]o further extensions will be granted.” (Id.)
Instead of filing objections, Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the October
1, 2019, Order. (ECF No. 103.) In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff makes the same
arguments he presented in his prior motions for extensions of time. In short, instead of using the
additional time the Court granted Plaintiff to prepare objections, Plaintiff has chosen to continuing
arguing for more time, even though the Court explicitly told Plaintiff that no additional extensions

would be granted. As set forth in the Court’s prior orders, the original extension of time provided
Plaintiff with plenty of time to prepare and file his objections. Instead of continuing to press his
request for more time, Plaintiff could have devoted the time to preparing his objections. Because
the Court finds that it did not err in its prior orders, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be
denied.
As for the R & R, the Court has reviewed it and concludes that it should be adopted,
particularly because Plaintiff has shown no basis for rejecting it. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to
show good cause for failing to serve Defendants Marlette, Simons, Franckowiak, Schwesinger, and
Dicken. Accordingly, those Defendants will be dismissed for failure to effect timely service.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the August 27, 2019, Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 93) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
(ECF Nos. 76 and 77) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rogers, Williams,
Olson, Johnson, Mastaw, Beaudoin, and Raffaele are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Marlette, Simons,
Franckowiak, Schwesinger, and Dicken are DISMISSED for failure to effect service. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(3)(m).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 103)
is DENIED.
This case is concluded.
A separate judgment will enter.

Dated: October 17, 2019

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2