Kim Young v. Danny J. Savoie and Elizabeth Hertel

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KIM YOUNG, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-14135

Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge DANNY J. SAVOIE, and ELIZABETH HERTEL. Honorable Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 23), DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 5), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS (ECF No. 13), AND ACCEPTING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 24) On June 30, 2026, Magistrate Curtis Ivy, Jr. issued a report recommending that this Court construe Plaintiff Kim Young’s supplemental filings, ECF Nos. 10; 13; 17; 18; 19, as a motion to amend her complaint, grant that motion, and provide Young with a deadline to file her amended complaint. ECF No. 23 at PageID.149— 50. Judge Ivy further recommended that this Court deny without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 5, and deny as moot Young’s motion for leave to file supplemental exhibits, ECF No. 13. ECF No. 23 at PageID.150. Judge Ivy provided 14 days for objections to be filed, but no party filed objections. They have therefore forfeited their right to appeal Judge Ivy’s findings.

See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530-31 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). Moreover, there is no prejudicial clear error in the report. However, before the period for filing objections had expired, Young filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 24. Accordingly, instead of providing Young with a deadline to file an amended complaint as Judge Ivy contemplated in his R&R, see ECF No. 23, this Court will instead accept Young’s amended complaint that was filed on July 13, 2026. See ECF No. 24. This complaint will be the operative complaint moving forward in this case. Accordingly, itis ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 23, is ADOPTED. Further, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibits, ECF No. 13, is DENIED AS MOOT. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 24, is ACCEPTED and will be the operative complaint in the above-captioned case. This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case. /s/Susan_K. DeClercg SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge Dated: July 15, 2026

-2-