UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GRIFFIN KNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERRY ALLEN-SABO,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 2:08-cv-14690

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

(document no. 35), DISMISSING THIS CASE FOR LACK 

OF PROSECUTION, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 21) AND 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(document no. 1), AND TO EXPEDITE SCHEDULING (document nos. 36-37)

In this action the plaintiff Griffin Knight, proceeding pro se, seeks damages and an

injunction to prevent what he alleges is the defendant’s unlawful attempts to evict him from

his apartment. Because Knight alleges that his housing arrangement is subject to Section

8 of the United States Housing Act, and that defendants are acting in contravention of the

eligibility and renewal provisions of the Act, this Court has jurisdiction over the case

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

The Court has referred this case for all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Michael

Hluchaniuk. On January 30th, 2009, the defendant moved for summary judgment. On

February 12th, Judge Hluchaniuk issued an order requiring a response. Document no. 29.

Knight’s only response was to file copies of a petition for a writ of mandamus he had filed

with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Document no. 31. Knight apparently filed

this petition because he was unhappy with Judge Hluchaniuk’s report and recommendation

that his motion for a preliminary injunction be denied, see document no. 8, and with this

2:08-cv-14690-SJM-MJH Doc # 38 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 539
2

Court’s failure to hold what Knight refers to has as a “de novo hearing” to review that

recommendation. Knight’s dissatisfaction appears to arise in part from his mistaken

impression that, in reviewing Judge Hluchaniuk’s report and recommendation, this United

States District Court must adhere to the State of Michigan’s rules governing review of

referee decisions by a trial court. In any event, at the time he filed his petition for

mandamus, this Court was unable to hold any hearing on the preliminary injunction motion

because Knight had filed a notice of appeal of Judge Hluchaniuk’s report and

recommendation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, divesting this

Court of jurisdiction over that matter. See document no. 12.

On June 12th, 2009, Judge Hluchaniuk ordered Knight to show cause why his case

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, based on his failure to respond to the

motion for summary judgment. Document no. 34. Knight offered no response whatsoever.

 Accordingly, on July 6th, Judge Hluchaniuk issued a report and recommendation that the

case be dismissed for want of prosecution, and the motion for summary judgment be

denied as moot. Knight immediately responded by once again continuing to litigate the

preliminary-injunction motion, filing two motions to expedite the “de novo hearing” on that

matter. He did not even purport to file any objection to Judge Hluchaniuk's most recent

report and recommendation itself, nor has the defendant.

The Court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and

recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because neither party filed timely objections to

Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk’s report and recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this Court need not and will not conduct a review.

2:08-cv-14690-SJM-MJH Doc # 38 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 540
3

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for lack of

prosecution. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, defendant’s motion for summary

judgment, and plaintiff's motions "to expedite scheduling de novo hearing" are DENIED AS

MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: August 18, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on August 18, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Alissa Greer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14690-SJM-MJH Doc # 38 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 541