Bennett v. MDOC et al

Filing 70

ORDER (1) Granting Defendant Jackson Allegiance Hospital's 38 Motion to Dismiss and (2) Dismissing Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Jackson Allegiance Hospital With Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARL BENNETT #298713,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-14465
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
JACKSON ALLEGIANCE HOSPITAL, and
DOCTOR MAHENDER MACHA,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT JACKSON ALLEGIANCE
HOSPITAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #38) AND (2) DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT JACKSON
ALLEGIANCE HOSPITAL WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Carl Bennett is a former inmate in the Michigan Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”). On December 24, 2015, Bennett filed a pro se prisoner
civil-rights Complaint in which he alleged, among other things, that the MDOC was
indifferent to his medical needs. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Bennett later retained
counsel, and his counsel filed an Amended Complaint on his behalf. (See Am.
Compl., ECF #34.) The Amended Complaint asserts two state-law claims against
Defendant Jackson Allegiance Hospital: (1) medical malpractice and (2) negligent
infliction of emotional distress. (See id.) Jackson Allegiance Hospital filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint. (See ECF #38.)
1

On September 13, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendant Jackson Allegiance
Hospital’s motion and dismiss Bennett’s claims against Jackson Allegiance Hospital
with prejudice (the “R&R”). (See ECF #57.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his
recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within
fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 753.)
Plaintiff has not 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 Plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the R&R,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant
Defendant Jackson Allegiance Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss claims
against Jackson Allegiance Hospital with prejudice is ADOPTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Defendant Jackson Allegiance
Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF #38) is GRANTED and (2) Bennett’s claims
against Defendant Jackson Allegiance Hospital are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

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

Dated: December 18, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 18, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3