Hoosier v. Liu et al, No. 2:2016cv10688 - Document 72 (E.D. Mich. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 68 to Deny Defendants Wendy LIU, N.P., Badawi Abdellatif, M.D., Kim Farris, P.A., and Karen Rhodes, D.O.'s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) 57 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

Download PDF
Hoosier v. Liu et al Doc. 72 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DWAYNE HOOSIER, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 16-10688 HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD v. WENDY LIU, et al., Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#68] TO DENY DEFENDANTS WENDY LIU, N.P., BADAWI ABDELLATIF, M.D., KIM FARRIS, P.A., AND KAREN RHODES, D.O.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) [#57] This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 68) filed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti to deny Defendants Wendy Liu, N.P., Badawi Abdellatif, M.D., Kim Farris, P.A., and Karen Rhodes, D.O.’s (collectively, the “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Doc # 57) No objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation. The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The background facts of this matter are adequately set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court adopts them here. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that his findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the factors considered for dismissal do not operate in Defendants’ favor. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s Report and Recommendation (Doc # 68) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wendy Liu, Badawi Abdellatif, Kim Farris, and Karen Rhodes’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (Doc # 57) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. S/Denise Page Hood Denise Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court Dated: January 31, 2018 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on January 31, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry Case Manager 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.