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)

Download PDF
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 (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?