1

 Magistrate Judge Binder characterizes the recommendation as granting Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment, but he does not recommend reaching the merits of their state-law claims.

Accordingly, the recommendation only grants part of the relief sought. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

RODERICK HAROLD PERSON,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 08-14850-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

CITY OF ALPENA, COUNTY OF ALPENA,

JOHN DOE, ALPENA DEPARTMENT OF 

ROAD WORKS, ALPENA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

CHIEF OF ALPENA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

WILLIAM C. GOHL, OFFICER MICHAEL BROOKS,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AS MOOT, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE, AND REMANDING THE CASE TO

ALPENA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder issued a report and recommendation [Dkt. # 49] on

March 9, 2010, recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 32] be

granted in part and that Plaintiff’s motion for discovery [Dkt. # 43] be denied as moot.1

 He further

recommended that the case be dismissed in its entirety. Either party may serve and file written

objections “[w]ithin 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. Thomas
-2-

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). 

The Magistrate Judge’s report recommends dismissing the case in its entirety. However, it

suggests that Plaintiff’s state law claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

rather than on their merits, because the court no longer has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

complaint after the constitutional claims have been dismissed. The complaint was not filed in this

Court originally. Rather, it was removed from Alpena County Circuit Court by the Defendants. “If

at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

[over a case that has been removed from state court], the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims will be remanded to Alpena County

Circuit Court rather than dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Dkt.

# 49] is ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 32] is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for discovery [Dkt. # 43] is DENIED AS

MOOT. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s constitutional claims are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state law claims against all Defendants are

REMANDED to Alpena County Circuit Court for further proceedings. 
-3-

It is further ORDERED that the case is closed. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: March 29, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on March 29, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS