Debro v. French, et al.

Filing 46

ORDER Resolving Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims Without Prejudice, and Compelling Arbitration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KYLE M. DEBRO,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-14225
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
JEFF FRENCH, et. al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER RESOLVING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AND COMPELLING ARBITRATION
On December 1, 2015, Plaintiff Kyle M. Debro (“Debro”) filed a Complaint
against Defendants Jeff French (“French”) and Aubree’s Pizza LLC (“Aubree’s
Pizza”). (See Compl., ECF #1.) Debro alleges that French and Aubree’s Pizza
(collectively “Defendants”) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e(2)(a) et seq. (the “Act”) by discriminating against him due to his
race and by constructively discharging him in retaliation for complaining about the
alleged discrimination. (See id. at 7, Pg. ID 34). Defendants moved for summary
judgment on July 27, 2016. (See ECF #36.) In their motion, Defendants asked the
Court to grant summary judgment on Debro’s claims and dismiss them with
prejudice or, in the alternative, to dismiss the claims without prejudice and to refer
the claims to arbitration.
1

On February 16, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) in which she suggested that the Court should deny
summary judgment and, instead, should dismiss the action without prejudice and
refer Debro’s claims to arbitration.
At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that
if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific
objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at 13-14, Pg. ID 644-45.)
Neither party has filed any objections to the R&R. 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). Likewise, 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).
Accordingly, because neither party has filed any objections to the R&R, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition is
ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
 All of Debro’s claims in this action are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and

2

 The parties shall arbitrate Debro’s claims in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Aubree’ Team Member
Handbook (the ‘Handbook”). The Court expresses no opinion
as to any defenses that Defendants may wish to raise in
arbitration or under the terms of the applicable provisions of the
Handbook.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: March 8, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 8, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3