Young v. Ream, No. 2:2019cv10729 - Document 54 (E.D. Mich. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER ACCEPTING and ADOPTING 52 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Denying 44 MOTION for Relief from Judgment and 46 MOTION for Relief from Judgment - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Download PDF
Young v. Ream Doc. 54 Case 2:19-cv-10729-NGE-DRG ECF No. 54, PageID.530 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARDRA YOUNG, Plaintiff, No. 19-10729 Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds Magistrate Judge David R. Grand v. STACEY REAM, Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DECEMBER 1, 2021 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [52] TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT [44, 46] Presently before the Court is the magistrate judge’s December 1, 2021 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 52.) The magistrate judge recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 44, 46.) No party has filed objections. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, No. 09-10933, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120541, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record and the pleadings. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s motions for relief from judgment are DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: December 20, 2021 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-10729-NGE-DRG ECF No. 54, PageID.531 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 2 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on December 20, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager

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.