Malott v. Haas et al
ORDER Denying 30 Report and Recommendation, Dismissing Case and Denying 24 Motion for Summary Judgment as Moot. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 16-cv-13014
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
RANDALL HAAS, et al.,
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING CASE,
AND DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT
On August 17, 2016, Plaintiff Micahel Malott initiated the above-captioned matter by
filing his pro se complaint against Defendants Randall Haas, George Stephanson, “Inspector
Steece”, and “Mr. Robinson.” See Compl., ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff alleges that, by ignoring his
request for protection, Defendants are responsible for an assault he was subjected to by fellow
inmates. Id. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for report and
After Plaintiff struggled to serve Defendant Robinson, MDOC eventually furnished a
letter to the Clerk’s Office representing that Robinson was “now deceased.” See ECF No. 27. As
a result, on January 4, 2017 Magistrate Judge Grand directed Plaintiff to show cause as to why
his complain should not be dismissed as to Defendant Robinson. See ECF No. 28. Plaintiff did
not respond as directed.
On December 12, 2016 Defendants Haas, Steece, and Stephanson filed a motion for
summary judgment. See ECF No. 24.
The following day, the magistrate issued an order
directing Plaintiff to respond to the summary judgment order on or before January 6, 2017. See
ECF No. 26. After Plaintiff failed to respond, on January 13, 2017, the magistrate directed
Plaintiff to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See ECF No. 29. Plaintiff again did not
respond as directed.
On February 8, 2017 the magistrate judge issued his report and recommendation,
recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 30.
Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly states that the parties could object to and seek
review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, Plaintiff did not file
any objections within that time period. However, over thirty days after the issuance of the
magistrate judge’s report, on March 17, 2017, Plaintiff Malott submitted a letter to the clerk’s
office claiming that officials at the Oaks Correctional Facility conspired to prevent him from
accessing the Court in retaliation for his filing of the lawsuit. See ECF No. 31. Plaintiff
represented that he had since been transferred to the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, and
requested an update on the status of his case. As a result, Plaintiff’s address was updated and his
deadline to object to the magistrate judge’s report was extended to April 12, 2017. See ECF No.
On April 4, 2017 Plaintiff submitted a response in which he notes that he is dealing with
his Court access issue through the prison’s administrative grievance process. He also represents
that he does not object to the dismissal of his case. See ECF No. 34. The election not to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently
review the record, and waives any further right to appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
ECF No. 30, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 24, is
DENIED as moot.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: April 5, 2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on April 5, 2017.
s/Kelly Winslow for
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?