Baytops v. Slominski ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MILTON BAYTOPS, Plaintiff, Case No. 4:20-cv-11630 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. STEVE SLOMINSKI, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 43) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 18) Plaintiff Milton Baytops is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. On June 8, 2020, Baytops filed a pro se civil-rights Complaint in the Western District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) He alleged, among other things, that Michigan State Police Detective Sergeant Scott Wood subjected him to excessive force. (See id.) This action was transferred from the Western District to this Court on June 22, 2020. (See ECF No. 3.) On October 19, 2020, Wood filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Mot., ECF No. 18.) Wood’s motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. On May 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant Wood’s motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 43.) In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge explained that Baytops failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact about Wood’s involvement in any of the excessive force alleged in the Complaint. (See id., PageID.470.) The Magistrate Judge also explained that Baytops failed to meet his burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Wood’s liability under a theory of supervisory liability. (See id., PageID.474-475.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Wood was entitled to qualified immunity. (See id., PageID.478.) For all of these reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Wood’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (See id. at PageID.479.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed Baytops that if he wanted to seek review of the R&R, he needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.480-481.) Baytops 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 Baytops has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Wood’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wood’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. 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