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.

Sanders v. Michigan Supreme Court

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

March 26, 2018

BRENDA SANDERS, Plaintiff,
v.
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)

          AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I.

         On 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. 112)
Defendant City of Detroit's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 123)

         The 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. 193).

         II.

         As an 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.

         III.

         A.

         A 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 ...


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.