Mitchell v. Lamarca ( 2024 )

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERNDIVISION ORLANDODEMETRIUSMITCHELL, Plaintiff, CaseNumber23-10325 v. HonorableDavidM.Lawson Magistrate JudgeDavidR.Grand FRANK LAMARCA, HENRY FORD ALLEGIANCEHOSPITAL,and JOHN DOES, Defendants, ________________________________________/ AMENDEDORDER ADOPTING REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION ANDDISMISSING INPART AMENDED COMPLAINT Presently before the Court is the report issued on February 27, 2024 by Magistrate Judge DavidR.Grandunder28U.S.C.§636(b)onafilingbytheplaintiffwhichJudgeGrandinterpreted asanamendedcomplaint. BecausethedefendantpresentlyisincarceratedattheG.RobertCotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, Judge Grand conducted the required screening of the plaintiff’s amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). He determined that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against most of the defendants added to the complaint on the grounds that each is either immune, not subject to suit under § 1983 as a prison facility, not personally involved in the plaintiff’s alleged mistreatment, or not alleged to have acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Accordingly, he recommended dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against those defendants. However, Judge Grand concluded that the plaintiff had alleged sufficientfactstostateanEighthAmendmentclaimagainstdefendantDr.DarrelBarrows,andhe orderedtheClerkofCourttopreparethenecessaryformstoeffectuateserviceonhim. Defendants Henry Ford Allegiance Hospital and Frank Lamarca separately have filed a motion to dismiss, whichremains pendingbeforeJudgeGrand. The deadline for filing objections to the report has passed, and no objections have been filed. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Tchrs. Loc. 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agreeswiththefindings andconclusionsofthemagistratejudge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTEDandthedefendant’sclaimsagainstMDOC;KCF;SLF;WardenMikeBrown;Deputy Warden Jeffrey Howard; Deputy Warden Barb Storay; Deputy Warden Bruce Bigger; Warden Secretary Sherry Lajole; Prison Counselor Kandy Wright; Kirt Mahar; Patricia Lamb, RN; Grievance Coordinator M. Gustafson; and Hearings Administrator Richard D. Russell are DISMISSEDWITHPREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that the previous order of reference to the assigned magistrate judge (ECF No. 11)is CONTINUED. s/DavidM.Lawson DAVIDM. LAWSON United States District Judge Dated: May2, 2024