Hamer v. Griffs ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SHADNEY HAMER, Case No. 22-12106 Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. United States District Judge CAROL GRIFFS, et al., Kimberly G. Altman United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S APRIL 5, 2023 AND APRIL 11, 2023 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF Nos. 64, 65) Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman’s April 5, 2023 and April 11, 2023 Reports and Recommendations. (ECF Nos. 64, 65). In the April 5 Report and Recommendation, Judge Altman recommends (1) granting Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Corizon as a Defendant in this matter and to add Wellpath Health Services as a Defendant; (2) denying Corizon’s motion to dismiss as moot; and (3) denying in part as moot Defendants’ motion to withdraw and for a stay. Judge Altman explains that even though there is an automatic stay in place because Corizon has filed for bankruptcy, Corizon can be dismissed as a defendant from this matter under well-established law. See ECF No. 64, PageID.650-651 (citing Dennis v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 860 F.2d 871, 872 (8th Cir. 1988); Indep. Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 966 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1992)). Given this recommendation, Judge Altman also concludes that Corizon’s motion to dismiss is moot, as is the motion for withdrawal of attorney and for 120-day stay as to Corizon. (ECF No. 64, PageID.653-654).1 In the April 11 Report and Recommendation, Judge Altman recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Defendant Griffes2 with prejudice, and dismissing Defendants Kootner and Rubley from this matter without prejudice. (ECF No. 65). The court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record and the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections within the time allowed. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The court nevertheless agrees with Judge Altman’s recommended disposition. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 64, 65) and (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss 1 Judge Altman does not address the motion to withdraw and for a stay as to Defendant Herro in this Report and Recommendation and indicates that it will be decided at a later date. (ECF No. 64, PageID.654, n. 2). She did so on April 13, 2023. (ECF No. 67). 2 As spelled in the motion for summary judgment. Corizon as a Defendant and add Wellpath Health Services as a Defendant (ECF No. 39); (2) DENIES Corizon’s motion to dismiss as moot (ECF No. 30); (3) DENIES in part as moot Defendants’ motion to withdraw and for a stay as to Corizon only (ECF No. 62); (4) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23), DISMISSES Defendant Griffes with prejudice, and DISMISSES Defendants Kootner, and Rubley from this matter without prejudice. SO ORDERED. Date: May 5, 2023 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge