Johnson et al v. Wickersham et al

Filing 94

ORDER (1) Adopting 93 Report and Recommendation, (2) Granting Defendants' 81 Motion to Dismiss, (3) Substituting County of Macomb as Defendant, (4) Denying Plaintiff's 91 Motion for Summary Judgment, and (5) Granting Defendants' 86 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DORIAN WILLIS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-13672
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
ANTHONY WICKERSHAM et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #93),
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #81), (3)
SUBSTITUTING COUNTY OF MACOMB AS DEFENDANT, (4) DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #91), AND
(5) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #86)
On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff Dorian Willis (“Willis”) filed a First
Amended Complaint related to his incarceration at the Macomb County Jail. (See
ECF #78.) On March 3, 2015, Defendants Anthony Wickersham (“Wickersham”)
and Michelle Sanborn (“Sanborn”) filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #81.) Wickersham and Sanborn
subsequently also filed a motion for summary judgment (the “Summary Judgment
Motion”). (See ECF #86.)

Willis responded to the motions and filed his own

cross-motion for summary judgment (the “Cross Motion for Summary Judgment”).
(See ECF #93.)
1

On February 4, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (the “R&R”) in which he recommended that the Court:
 (1) Grant the Motion to Dismiss as to Defendants Wickersham and
Sanborn and (2) substitute the County of Macomb as the proper
Defendant in this action;
 Deny Willis’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; and
 Grant the Summary Judgment Motion and dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. (See ECF #93 at 2, Pg. ID 567.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge instructed the parties
that “[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within
fourteen (14) days…” and that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a
waiver of any further right of appeal.” (Id. at 12, Pg. ID 577.)
No party, including Willis, has filed an objection to the R&R. As the
Magistrate Judge informed the parties, the failure to file an objection to a report
and recommendation 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). Likewise, the failure to
object releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has nevertheless reviewed
the R&R and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (ECF #93) is
ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for
the reasons stated in the R&R,
 the Motion to Dismiss (ECF #81) is GRANTED as to Defendants
Wickersham and Sanborn;
 the County of Macomb is substituted as the proper Defendant in this
action;
 Willis’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #91) is
DENIED; and
 the Summary Judgment Motion (ECF #86) is GRANTED.

Dated: February 26, 2016

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 26, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3