Opoku-Agyemang v. Montgomery ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION GEORGE OPOKU-AGYEMANG, 2:18-CV-13125-TGB-DRG Plaintiff, HON. TERRENCE G. BERG vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SCOTT MONTGOMERY, et al., (ECF NOS. 48, 50, 52) AND Defendants. DISMISSING CASE This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Reports and Recommendations (“R&Rs”) recommending that pro se Plaintiff George Opoku-Agyemang’s case be dismissed as to all remaining Defendants for various reasons. ECF Nos. 48, 50, 52. Magistrate Judge Grand recommended: (1) granting Defendant Ken Romanowski’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit against him (ECF No. 48); (2) dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Scott Montgomery and Ms. Parker for failure to prosecute (ECF No. 50); and (3) dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Dr. Dinsa for failure to prosecute (ECF No. 52). The law provides that either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party objects to the report, the district court is not obligated to independently review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–52 (1985). Here, the R&Rs were served by mail between four and fourteen weeks ago. Being mindful of the delays in receiving and responding to mail that are outside of an incarcerated plaintiff’s control, the Court has allowed Plaintiff significant additional time to raise objections. But even with this additional time, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections to the R&Rs nor has he filed a delayed response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on April 24, 2023 (ECF No. 49). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Grand’s Reports and Recommendations (ECF No. 48, 50, 52) are ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Defendant Romanowski, and is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendants Montgomery, Parker, and Dinsa. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 27, 2023 s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE