Clingerman v. Genesee County Jail

E.D. Michigan

Clingerman v. Genesee County Jail

DecidedJuly 26, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-13121

StatusUnknown

This text of Clingerman v. Genesee County Jail (Clingerman v. Genesee County Jail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clingerman v. Genesee County Jail, (E.D. Mich. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY CLINGERMAN, 2:23-CV-13121-TGB-DRG Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION vs. (ECF NO. 20) TO DENY GENESEE COUNTY JAIL, et al., MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 17) Defendant. This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s June 18, 2024 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20), recommending that Plaintiff Timothy Clingerman’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 17) be denied. The Court has reviewed Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation and finds that it is well-reasoned and supported by the applicable law. The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party has lodged any objections to a Report & Recommendation, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court is mindful that the docket reflects that, on two separate occasions, efforts to serve Clingerman with the Report & Recommendation have

been unsuccessful and his mail has been returned as undeliverable. But Clingerman is under a duty to keep the Court updated regarding changes in his address. In any event, despite being under no obligation to do so, the Court independently reviewed the record and sees no possible meritorious objections to the Report & Recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept Judge Grand’s June 18, 2024 Report & Recommendation as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 20) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Clingerman’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMOTHY CLINGERMAN, 2:23-CV-13121-TGB-DRG Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION vs. (ECF NO. 20) TO DENY GENESEE COUNTY JAIL, et al., MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 17) Defendant. This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s June 18, 2024 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20), recommending that Plaintiff Timothy Clingerman’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 17) be denied. The Court has reviewed Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation and finds that it is well-reasoned and supported by the applicable law. The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party has lodged any objections to a Report & Recommendation, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court is mindful that the docket reflects that, on two separate occasions, efforts to serve Clingerman with the Report & Recommendation have

been unsuccessful and his mail has been returned as undeliverable. But Clingerman is under a duty to keep the Court updated regarding changes in his address. In any event, despite being under no obligation to do so, the Court independently reviewed the record and sees no possible meritorious objections to the Report & Recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept Judge Grand’s June 18, 2024 Report & Recommendation as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 20) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Clingerman’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clingerman v. Genesee County Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clingerman-v-genesee-county-jail-mied-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack