Report and Recommendation

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

1 Universal Health Group v. Allstate; Case No. 09-12524

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNIVERSAL HEALTH GROUP, Case No. 09-12524

Plaintiff, Victoria A. Roberts

vs. United States District Judge

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant.

________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER (Dkt. 23)

District Judge Victoria A. Roberts referred this matter to the undersigned for

all pretrial proceedings. (Dkt. 30). On November 6, 2009, defendant filed a

motion for partial summary judgment and for a protective order. (Dkt. 23). Before

the hearing was held on this motion, the parties resolved the motion for partial

summary judgment, as set forth in their joint statement of resolved and unresolved

issues. (Dkt. 46). Thereafter, the undersigned issued an order addressing only the

motion for protective order and noting resolution of the motion for partial

summary judgment. (Dkt. 60).

On July 26, 2010, pursuant to Local Rule 58.1(c), defendant filed a notice of

entry of order, with an attached proposed order reflecting the parties’ previous

agreement on the motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. 78). More than
Report and Recommendation

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

2 Universal Health Group v. Allstate; Case No. 09-12524

seven days have passed since this notice was filed and plaintiff has not filed any

objection to the form or substance of the proposed order. Thus, the undersigned

RECOMMENDS that the Court ENTER the order as proposed.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some

issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health

and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the
Report and Recommendation

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

3 Universal Health Group v. Allstate; Case No. 09-12524

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection

No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may

rule without awaiting the response.

Date: September 3, 2010 s/Michael Hluchaniuk

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 3, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to the following: Craig S,. Romanzi, Allison D. Lazette, Stanley J.

Feldman, and Karen W. Magdich.

s/Tammy Hallwood 

Case Manager

(810) 341-7887

tammy_hallwood@mied.uscourts.gov