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)

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
[phone]

3