United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Walter L. Hall, Plaintiff,
Officer Chapman, FCI-Milan, UNICOR-Paint A; N. Jukuri, Sheet Metal Worker Foreman; Finch, General Manager of UNICOR Defendants.
Terrence G. Berg Hon. Anthony P. Patti
ORDER MODIFYING REPORT AND RECOMENDATION (Dkt. 30)
AND DENYING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 13)
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner civil rights action brought by a Michigan state
prisoner, Plaintiff Walter Lee Hall, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The procedural history relevant to the instant
Order is as follows:
• On October 23, 2015 Plaintiff filed his original
Complaint. (Dkt. 1).
• On March 7, 2016 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's original Complaint. (Dkt. 13).
• On May 10, 2016 Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his
original Complaint. (Dkt. 20).
• On December 12, 2016 Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti
filed a Report and Recommendation granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 30).
• On December 21, 2016 Judge Patti filed an Opinion and
Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's
motion to amend his original Complaint. (Dkt. 33).
• On December 27, 2016 Defendants filed Objections to
the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 34).
• On January 9, 2017 Plaintiff filed a “response
to courts report and recommendations” expressing his
intention to file an amended complaint in accordance with
what Plaintiff understood to be the Court's instructions.
• On January 17, 2017 Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. (Dkt. 38).
• On January 18, 2017 Defendants filed a “response
to Plaintiff's filing at Dkt. 37, ” indicating,
among other things, that they did not object to
Plaintiff's filing an amended complaint. (Dkt. 39).
normal circumstances, this case should be at the stage where
this Court is in a position to review the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in light of any
objections filed by the parties. Here, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that part of the Complaint be dismissed, as
requested by Defendants, but that some of the claims be
allowed to continue-thus recommending that Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint be granted in part and denied
in part. (Dkt. 30). The Defendants objected to this
recommendation, asking this Court to dismiss the original
Complaint in its entirety. (Dkt. 34). All good so far, but
the matter has been somewhat confused by the fact that
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 38)-which dropped
the claims that the Magistrate Judge recommended for
dismissal-before this Court had the chance to rule on
Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation.
at the pleadings and orders, Plaintiff had good reason to
think that he was expected to file his Amended Complaint when
he did because the Magistrate Judge had issued an Order
granting in part Plaintiff's motion to amend his
Complaint. (Dkt 33). In that Order, Magistrate Judge Patti
stated, “No later than 21 days following this
Court's disposition of Defendants' March 7, 2016
motion to dismiss, Plaintiff SHALL”
file a first amended complaint “which conforms to this
order and any other order filed in this case.” (Dkt. 33
at Pg ID 430). Although the reference to “this
Court's disposition” was intended to direct
Plaintiff to file his Amended Complaint after this
Court-that is, the District Judge- had reviewed the Report
and Recommendation and disposed of Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, by either accepting or rejecting the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff apparently did not understand the
Order that way because he mailed to the Court on January 10,
2017 an Amended Complaint “in direct response to
[Magistrate Judge Patti's] opinion and order dated
December 21, 2016.” (Dkt. 38 at Pg ID 359). As
Defendants acknowledge in their ...