UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

SARA ELYAS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:21-cv-840 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF EDWARD ANDREW JOHNSTON, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Now pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34). The Magistrate Judge’s March 15, 2022 Report and Recommendation recommended that Defendant Progressive’s Motion for a More Definite Statement (ECF No. 5) be denied without prejudice, and Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 20, & 25) be granted (ECF No. 33). The Report and Recommendation concluded that Plaintiff has not sufficiently established the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and recommended that the case be dismissed (id.). Plaintiff’s Objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this matter (ECF No. 34). See Weiler v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury-Internal Revenue Serv., No. 19-3729,

, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 24, 2020) (“De novo review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation is required only where the objections filed were not frivolous and only applies to factual disputes.”). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 34) are OVERRULED AND DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatthe Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33), as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Progressive’s Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 5)is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 20, & 25)are GRANTED.

/s/ Janet T. Neff Dated: July 14, 2022 JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge