Sharpe v. City of Southfield ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Anthony Sharpe, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-13172 v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge City of Southfield, et al., Mag. Judge David R. Grand Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [34] Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) recommending the Court grant in part and deny in part the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendants the City of Southfield, the Southfield Police Department, William Pieroni, Christopher Don, Steven Hendricks, and Joseph Martinez. (ECF No. 19.) The parties were required to file specific written objections, if any, within fourteen days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). No objections were filed. The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly, The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ADOPTED; Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and Plaintiff Anthony Sharpe’s excessive force claim against Pieroni, Don, Hendricks, and Martinez proceeds; however, all of Plaintiff’s other claims are DISMISSED, including his Monell claim against the City of Southfield and the Southfield Police Department.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 10, 2022 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 10, 2022. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager 1 By failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties have forfeited any further right of appeal. See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019); see also Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019).