Mudford v. Brown et al

Filing 18

ORDER Granting Defendants' 10 and 11 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT BRIAN MUDFORD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-10104
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
ELWOOD BROWN et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #10, 11)
In this action, Plaintiff Scott Brian Mudford (“Plaintiff”) alleges that the
Defendants, including St. Clair County Probate Judge Elwood Brown, violated his
constitutional rights, including “his right to self-preservation and the right to bear
arms.” (See Compl., ECF #1 at 1, Pg. ID 1.) It appears that Plaintiff’s claims arise
out of a custody hearing in the St. Clair County Probate Court. (See id.)
Defendants moved for summary judgment on May 31 and June 1, 2016 (the
“Motions”). (See ECF ## 10, 11.)
On January 20, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the Motions on the basis that
each of the Defendants was entitled to judicial or quasi-judicial immunity (the
“R&R”). (See ECF #17.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge

1

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 9-10, Pg. ID 242-43.)
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
the Motions is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment (ECF ## 10, 11) are GRANTED.

Dated: February 7, 2017

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

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 7, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

2