Robinson v. Chapko ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CALVIN ROBINSON, JR., Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-10499 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. RYAN CHAPKO, et al., Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 19), AND (2) DISMISSING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 1, 5.) On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Calvin Robinson filed a pro se and in forma pauperis complaint in this Court against Defendant Ryan Chapko, a Clayton Township police officer, the Clayton Township Police Department, the Flushing Township Police Department, and the City of Flushing Police Department. (See ECF No. 1.) In his complaint, Robinson alleges civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See id.) On October 2, 2020, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in part (the “R&R”). (See ECF #19.) Specifically, the Magistrate recommended that Robinson’s complaint be dismissed as against Defendants Clayton Township Police Department, Flushing Township Police Department, and the City of Flushing Police Department, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Magistrate Judge recommended that with the dismissal of the aforementioned Defendants, the sole remaining Defendant in this case would be Ryan Chapko. (See id., PageID.48.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of the recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. PageID.48-49.) Robinson has not filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Likewise, the failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, because Robinson has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of the pending motions is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Defendants Clayton Township Police Department, Flushing Township Police Department, and the City of Flushing Police Department are DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 21, 2020 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 21, 2020, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764