Parker v. Lee ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRUCE PARKER, Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-11684 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. BRANDON LEE, et al., Defendants __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 36) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 26) Plaintiff Bruce Parker is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. On July 14, 2023, Parker filed this pro se civil-rights action against the Defendants. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Parker alleges, among other things, that the Defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances and complaints under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Parker’s risk of harm, and that Defendants violated his equal protection rights. (See id.) On October 16, 2023, in a joint motion, Defendants Brandon Lee, Lance Thompson, and Jeremy Keranen moved to dismiss Parker’s claims against them and Defendants Keranen, Kory Krueger, and Stephen Young moved for summary judgment based on Parker’s alleged failure to exhaust his claims. (See Mot., ECF No. 26.) On May 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended granting Defendants’ motion in part and denying it in part (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 36.) More specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court (1) grant the motion with respect to Parker’s claims of retaliation against Defendants Keranen, Young, and Kreuger and his equal protection claim against Defendants Lee, Thompson, and Keranen, and (2) deny the motion with respect to Parker’s retaliation claims against Lee and Thompson and his claim against Keranen arising out of Keranen’s conduct on May 14, 2023. (See id., PageID.289.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.289-290.) No party has filed an objection to the R&R. Nor has any party contacted the Court seeking additional time to file objections. 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). See also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that where party fails to file “timely objections” to report and recommendation, court may accept that recommendation “without expressing any view on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”). 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 no party has filed any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Defendants’ motion is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parker’s retaliation claims against Defendants Keranen, Young, and Kreuger and his equal protection claims against Defendants Lee, Thompson, and Keranen are DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: June 11, 2024 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on June 11, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126