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.

Anderson v. Furst

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

June 13, 2018

JERRY ANDERSON Plaintiff,
v.
COLTER FURST, et al., Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO COURT'S ORDER [DOC. # 37]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.

         Jerry Anderson (“Anderson”) is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. He filed a civil rights lawsuit against Michigan State Police Troopers Colter Furst, Michael Thomas, and Nathan Ellis (collectively, “Defendants”).

         Anderson objects to the Court's April 20, 2018 order dismissing previous objections he filed to two non-dispositive orders from Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. [Doc. # 35].

         For the reasons that follow, Anderson's objection is DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         Anderson alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force during his arrest. The Court granted Anderson's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered the United States Marshal to serve Defendants. The Marshal sent each Defendant a notice of the lawsuit, and a request to waive service. All Defendants returned executed waivers of service on September 19, 2017 and timely filed an answer on October 20, 2017. Anderson filed a response to Defendants' answer on November 7, 2017.

         Before Defendants answered his complaint, Anderson filed a request for default, alleging that Defendants failed to timely file an answer. The Court entered a notice denying Anderson's request for a clerk's entry of default.

         Anderson filed an affidavit, arguing that the Court erred in concluding that Defendants' answer was due on October 20, 2017. Magistrate Judge Patti filed an order construing Anderson's affidavit as a motion for reconsideration, and denied the motion. In a motion for reconsideration, Anderson made the same arguments, and Magistrate Judge Patti denied this motion.

         Magistrate Judge Patti also entered an order striking Anderson's response to Defendants' answer as impermissible under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 7(a)(7).

         Anderson objected to all of Magistrate Judge Patti's orders. The Court dismissed Anderson's objections, finding that Magistrate Judge Patti lawfully: 1) construed Anderson's affidavit as a motion for reconsideration; 2) denied Anderson's motion for reconsideration; and 3) struck Anderson's reply from the record. [Doc. # 35].

         Again, Anderson filed an objection, this time to the Court's order dismissing his previous objections. Anderson appears to argue that the Marshal was required to attempt personal service on Defendants before requesting that they waive service.

         II. Legal Standard

         Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review on a motion for reconsideration:

“Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for ... reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but ...

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.