Buy This Entire Record For
Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
March 26, 2018
BRENDA SANDERS, Plaintiff,
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DR. NORMAN L. MILLER, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD, CITY OF DETROIT, a municipal Corporation, LAIDLER & ZIELINSKI, PLLC, CYRIL HALL, COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL, PC., and the 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 184)
AND GRANTING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
(Docs. 80, 81, 82, 112, 123)
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 15, 2016, plaintiff proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed a complaint against the above captioned
defendants. As best as can be gleaned, plaintiff, a former
judge of the 36th District Court in Michigan,
claims violations of state and federal law relating to
proceedings before the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan
Judicial Tenure Commission which resulted in her removal from
the bench. She also claims violations of federal law during
her employment as a state district court judge, including
Title VII (race, religion, and gender discrimination) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Pretrial matters have been
referred to a magistrate judge. (Doc. 85). Thereafter,
certain defendants filed the following dispositive motions:
-Defendant Norman Miller's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 80)
-Defendant Collins Einhorn Farrell, PC's Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 81)
-Defendants Michigan Supreme Court, Judicial Tenure
Commission, and Attorney Discipline Board's Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 82)
Defendant 36th District Court's Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
Defendant City of Detroit's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. 123)
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, MJRR,
recommending that the motions be granted. (Doc. 184).
Plaintiff has filed objections in which she objects only to
the dismissal of Norman Miller and the City of Detroit. (Doc.
initial matter, plaintiff did not object to the recommended
dismissal of Collins Einhorn Farrell, PC, Michigan Supreme
Court, the Judicial Tenure Commission, the Attorney
Discipline Board, and 36th District Court. The failure to
file objections to the report and recommendation waives any
further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit
Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,
1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the
magistrate judge's report releases the Court from its
duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has
reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge.
district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of
a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a
party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district
"court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate" judge. Id. The requirement of de
novo review "is a statutory recognition that Article III
of the United States Constitution mandates that the judicial
power of the ...