Butz v. Clayton

Filing 23

ORDER (1) Adopting 21 Report and Recommendation and (2) Granting Defendant's 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FRANK LEONARD BUTZ,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-12232
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
JERRY CLAYTON,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #21)
AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #9)
On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff Frank Leonard Butz (“Butz”) filed a Complaint
against Defendant Jerry Clayton (“Clayton”), the Washtenaw County Sherriff. (See
ECF #1.) Among other things, Butz alleges that while he was incarcerated at the
Washtenaw County Jail, employees at the jail prevented him from taking a courtmandated educational course. (See id. at 3, Pg. ID 3.) Butz also claims that the
disciplinary system at the Washtenaw County Jail “is ambiguous,” and that some
of the internal messages (called “kites”) Butz sent while incarcerated at the jail
were never delivered. (Id.) On March 3, 2015, Clayton filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #9.)
On March 7, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (the “R&R”) in which he recommended that the Court grant the
1

Motion to Dismiss because Butz “has failed to state a claim upon which relief
maybe granted.” (ECF #21 at 13, Pg. ID 271.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge instructed the parties
that they “may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but
are required to file any objections within 14 days of service.” (Id.) The parties
were also told that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
any further right of appeal.” (Id.)
Butz has not filed any objections 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.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (ECF #21) 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 #9) is GRANTED.

Dated: May 2, 2016

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on May 2, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3