Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Wieszciecinski v. Goulette

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

May 8, 2015

PATRICIA LYNN WIESZCIECINSKI, Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERT ALFRED GOULETTE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.

On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff Wieszciecinski filed a pro se Complaint[1] alleging a number of sundry causes of action. Plaintiff makes no discernible factual allegations in her complaint. The only matter contained in her complaint is the cause of action boxes she checked on the civil cover sheet, and the single attached page on which she has written the names and addresses of various individuals and, it appears, identified a wrongful death cause of action. ECF No. 1.

On January 8, 2015, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed sua sponte because Plaintiff does not allege any basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Rep. & Rec. 3, ECF No. 5. Judge Morris notes that Defendants are all citizens of Michigan and Plaintiff does not allege a federal cause of action. Id.

The Magistrate Judge's report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.

Plaintiff did not file any objections. This could perhaps be explained by the fact that she was not served with the Report, which was returned undeliverable. ECF No. 8. All parties have an obligation to provide the Court with notice of new contact information. E.D. MICH. L.R. 11.2. A party's noncompliance with Local Rule 11.2 can result in appropriate sanctions, including dismissal. Id. Since Plaintiff's case is to be dismissed on other grounds, no sanctions will be imposed. As a practical matter, however, this order cannot be served upon her since she no longer has a current address listed on the docket.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, ECF No. 5, is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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