Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Denham v. Lord

March 19, 2010

JOHNNIE DENHAM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALBERT LORD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 18), GRANTING MOTION BY DEFENDANT BOLHOUSE LAW TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (docket no. 3) AND GRANTING MOTION BY DEFENDANT ALBERT LORD TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (docket 6)

This is an action stemming from the foreclosure and sheriff's sale of property at 35816 Concord Dr., Romulus, Michigan. Plaintiff Johnnie Denham is suing defendant Bolhouse, Vander Hulst, Risko, Baar & Lefere, P.C. ("Bolhouse Law"), defendant Albert Lord, Vice-Chairman and CEO of SLM Financial Corporation ("SLM"), and Warren C. Evans, Wayne County Sheriff.*fn1 Before the Court are the motion of defendant Bolhouse Law to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement, filed on July 31, 2009 (docket no. 3), the motion by defendant Lord to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, filed on August 4, 2009 (docket no. 6), and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, filed on February 28, 2010 (docket no. 18). The magistrate judge's report and recommendation recommended that both motions be granted and that all claims against defendants Bolhouse Law and Lord be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge also notified the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service. No party has filed objections to the reports and recommendations.

The Court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because neither party filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Whalen's reports and recommendations, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this Court need not and will not conduct a review.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of February 28, 2010 [docket entry 18] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Bolhouse Law's Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, For a More Definite Statement [docket entry 3] is GRANTED. All claims against Defendant Bolhouse, Vander Hulst, Risko, Baar & Lefere, P.C. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Albert Lord's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [docket entry 6] is GRANTED. All claims against Albert Lord are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.