Robinson v. Chapko ( 2021 )

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, Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 43) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF No. 39) On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff Calvin Robinson filed a pro se civil-rights 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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl., ECF No. 5.) On January 12, 2021, Robinson filed a motion for a default judgment with respect to Defendant Chapko. (See Mot., ECF No. 39.) Robinson argued that even though he had served Chapko with the Complaint and Amended Complaint, Chapko had “fail[ed] to appear.” (Id.) The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, and on February 2, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court deny the motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 43.) The Magistrate Judge explained that Chapko had appeared in this action, and he concluded that Robinson had “not shown that the entry of a default, let alone a default judgment, would be proper in this case.” (Id., PageID.176.) 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.176-177.) 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 Robinson’s motion for a default judgment is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robinson’s motion for a default judgment (ECF No. 39) is DENIED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 13, 2021 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on April 13, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764