Harris v. Detroit Public Schools Community District ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN ISAAC HARRIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-10922 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 34) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF No. 29) On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff John Isaac Harris filed this action against Defendant Detroit Public Schools Community District (the “DPS”) and others. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) In summary, Harris claims that he was harassed, retaliated against, and fired from a job he held with the DPS. (See id.) On January 19, 2021, Harris filed a motion for a default and default judgment with respect to DPS. (See Mot., ECF No. 29.) Harris argued that DPS had failed to timely file its Answer to his Complaint. (See id.) The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, and on March 1, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny the motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 34.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that there was “no basis” to enter a default or default judgment against DPS. (Id., PageID.757.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.758-759.) Harris 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 Harris has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Harris’ motion for a default and default judgment is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Harris’ motion for a default and default judgment (ECF No. 29) 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