Parker v. Washington ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRUCE PARKER, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-11413 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 72); AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 28) Plaintiff Bruce Parker is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. On May 14, 2020, Parker filed a pro se Complaint against Defendants Heidi Washington, Kenneth McKee, Willis Chapman, George Stephenson, and Kristopher Steece. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Parker alleges that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (See id.) On December 16, 2020, Parker filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants Chapman, Stephenson, and Steece. (See Mot., ECF No. 28). The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, and on May 25, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny Parker’s motion without prejudice as premature (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 72.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed Parker that if he wanted to seek review of her recommendation, he needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.902-903.) Parker did not file any objections to the R&R. The failure to object to a report and recommendation 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 object 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 Parker has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of his Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parker’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 8, 2021 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 8, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764