Irvine v. Clarke et al, No. 1:2019cv00359 - Document 39 (W.D. Mich. 2020)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 35 ; Defendant's motion to dismiss 6 is GRANTED; Plaintiff's motion for estoppel and writ for habeas corpus 25 is DENIED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Download PDF
Irvine v. Clarke et al Doc. 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARCUS IRVINE, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:19-cv-359 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF ARTHUR CLARKE, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER Defendants removed this case and filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff filed a “Motion for estoppel and Writ for Habeas Corpus.” The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending Plaintiff’s motion be denied and Defendants’ motion be granted. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order. This Court’s local rule requires a party objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Plaintiff has not specifically objected to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Dockets.Justia.com Recommendation. Plaintiff fails to assert—let alone demonstrate—any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusions. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Further, this Court will enter a Judgment consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 36) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Estoppel and Writ for Habeas Corpus” (ECF No. 25) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: March 3, 2020 2

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.