UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DONALD MACKAY, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-14097 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

 HON. MONA K. MAJZOUB 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 21) 

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s July 

7, 2015 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 21), recommending that Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) be granted, and that Plaintiff’s motion for emergency 

relief (Dkt. 5) and Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s second response (Dkt. 19) 

be denied as moot. Magistrate Judge Majzoub also recommended that Plaintiff be 

afforded the opportunity to amend his complaint. Neither party filed objections to 

Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s report and recommendation, and the time to do so has 

passed.1 

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. 

The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin 

                                                            

1 Following Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s report and recommendation, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

judgment (Dkt. 23), which Magistrate Judge Majzoub has taken under advisement (Dkt. 23). 

Plaintiff also filed an amended complaint (Dkt. 26), as Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s report and 

recommendation permitted Plaintiff to do. Defendant recently moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint (Dkt. 28). Plaintiff has not yet responded to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, but he has 

until September 21, 2015 to do so. 

4:14-cv-14097-TGB-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 09/03/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 148
2 

fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendations. 

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 objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently 

review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court will, 

therefore, accept Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s report and recommendation of July 7, 

2015, as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s 

Report and Recommendation of July 7, 2015 (Dkt. 21) is ACCEPTED and 

ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s original complaint (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s motion for 

emergency relief (Dkt. 5) is DENIED AS MOOT and Defendant’s motion to strike 

(Dkt. 19) is DENIED AS MOOT. This case remains pending, and is not closed. 

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Dkt. 23) and Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 28) remain unresolved, and are re-referred to 

Magistrate Judge Majzoub for an additional report and recommendation. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 3, 2015 s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on September 3, 

2015, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties. 

 s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

4:14-cv-14097-TGB-MKM Doc # 29 Filed 09/03/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 149