From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dorr v. Ford Motor Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 21, 2011
Case No. 10-13822 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 10-13822

11-21-2011

KRISTOPHER DORR, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants.


SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW


MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAURIE J. MICHELSON


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

[74] GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

DISMISS AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [68]

On September 27, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims and Defendants and Request for Injunctive Relief [68]. As Defendants had already filed an Answer to the Complaint, and in their motion provided documentary evidence, the Magistrate Judge construed Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this court grant Defendants' motion with respect to the dismissal of the claims against Defendants. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that this court deny Defendants' motion with respect to injunctive relief, specifically Defendants' request that this court enjoin Plaintiff from filing further suits against Defendants without permission of the court.

Plaintiff objected [75], [78], [79] to the Report and Recommendation. This Court reviews objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).

In his objection and supplemental briefs, Plaintiff merely repeats the allegations and arguments set out in the complaint. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation thoroughly explores and rejects said allegations and arguments, and Plaintiff's objection raises no new issues of fact or law.

The Court having reviewed the record in this case, the Opinion and Order of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims and Defendants and for Injunctive Relief is GRANTED with respect to the entry of summary judgment against Plaintiff on all claims. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims and Defendants and for Injunctive Relief is DENIED with respect to the request for injunctive relief.

SO ORDERED.

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on November 21, 2011 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on November 21, 2011: Kristopher Dorr.

Michael E. Lang

Deputy Clerk to

District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow

(313) 234-5182


Summaries of

Dorr v. Ford Motor Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 21, 2011
Case No. 10-13822 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Dorr v. Ford Motor Co.

Case Details

Full title:KRISTOPHER DORR, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 21, 2011

Citations

Case No. 10-13822 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2011)

Citing Cases

Dorr v. Unknown Agent of Nat'l Sec. Agency

In fact, a review of court filings in this District reveals that Plaintiff has filed numerous complaints…

Cain v. Rambert

"); Hopson v. Commonwealth Attorney's Office, No. 12-CV-744, 2013 WL 1411234, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 8, 2013)…