Lee v. Winn ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CLIFTON LEE, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-12480 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. OBELL WINN, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 41) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 36) Plaintiff Clifton Lee is a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). On August 20, 2020, Lee filed this pro se civil-rights action against several employees of the MDOC. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) The sole remaining Defendant is MDOC officer Jesse Swartz. Lee alleges that Swartz subjected him to a strip search that violated his (Lee’s) Eighth Amendment rights. (See id.) On July 20, 2023, Swartz moved for summary judgment. (See Mot., ECF No. 36.) The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (See Order, ECF No. 26.) On October 25, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended granting Swartz’ motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 41.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that Lee had “fail[ed] to present evidence demonstrating that Swartz’s conduct amount[ed] to” a violation of Lee’s Eighth Amendment rights. (See id., PageID.272.) The Magistrate Judge also concluded that “Swartz [was] entitled to qualified immunity because Lee failed to satisfy the objective component of his Eight Amendment claim, and thus failed to state a constitutional violation, much less a violation of clearly established law.” (Id. at n.3, PageID.274.) 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.275.) Lee has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has he 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). 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 Lee has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Swartz’ motion for summary judgment is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Swartz’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: November 29, 2023 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 29, 2023, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126