Van Heck v. Romeo, Village of et al

Filing 26

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 25 Report and Recommendation and (2) Granting Defendants' 19 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SHAWN R. VAN HECK, Plaintiff, Case No. 15-14404 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. VILLAGE OF ROMEO et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #25) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #19) In this action, Plaintiff Shawn R. Van Heck (“Van Heck”) alleges that in September 2015, Defendants Village of Romeo, the Romeo Police Department, and a Romeo police officer (collectively, “Defendants”) violated his constitutional rights when he was arrested and prosecuted for driving with a suspended driver’s license. (See Compl., ECF #1.) On April 21, 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss Van Heck’s Complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (the “Motions to Dismiss”). (See ECF #19.) On December 13, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Van Heck’s Complaint (the “R&R”). (See ECF #25.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed Van Heck that if he wanted 1 to seek review of her recommendation, he needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at 7-8, Pg. ID 191-92.) Van Heck has not filed an objection to the R&R. As the Magistrate Judge specifically warned him in the R&R (see id.), his failure to file an objection 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). Moreover, 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 Van Heck has not filed an objection to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF #25) is GRANTED and the Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED.             s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 6, 2017 2 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on January 6, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (313) 234-5113 3

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?