Kerr-Fletcher v. Schultz

Filing 16

ORDER (1) Granting Defendant's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
McKINLEY KERR-FLETCHER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-11030
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
T. SHULTZ,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF #10) AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In this action, Plaintiff McKinley Kerr-Fletcher (“Kerr-Fletcher”), a prisoner
confined in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, brings a civilrights complaint against Defendant T. Shultz (“Schultz”). (See Compl., ECF #1.)
Among other things, Kerr-Fletcher alleges that Schultz violated his (KerrFletcher’s) Eighth Amendment rights. (See id.)
On May 10, 2016, Schultz filed a motion for summary judgment (the
“Summary Judgment Motion”). (See ECF #10.) On May 11, 2016, the assigned
Magistrate Judge entered a written order in which she directed Kerr-Fletcher to file
a response to the Summary Judgment Motion by no later than June 1, 2016. (See
ECF #11.) Kerr-Fletcher did not file any response by that date, nor has he since
filed a response to the Summary Judgment Motion. (See Dkt.)

1

On November 29, 2015, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court (1) grant the Summary
Judgment Motion and (2) dismiss Kerr-Fletcher’s Complaint without prejudice due
to his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies (the “R&R”). (See ECF #15.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed Kerr-Fletcher that if
he wanted to seek review of her recommendation, he needed to file specific
objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at 9-10, Pg. ID 117-18.)
Kerr-Fletcher has not filed any objections to the R&R.

As the Magistrate

Judge specifically warned him in the R&R (see id.), this failure to file objections
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 Kerr-Fletcher has failed to file any objections to the
R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
is ADOPTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Summary Judgment Motion (ECF
#10) is GRANTED and Kerr-Fletcher’s Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Dated: December 21, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3