Brown v. Rivard et al

Filing 55

ORDER Adopting 50 Report and Recommendation for Granting 42 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Siefker, Sounder. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (BGar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Ronald Kirk Brown,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-11837

Steve Rivard, et al.,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING
2/13/19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff Ronald Kirk Brown (“Plaintiff”), a prison inmate in the
custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the Court referred the matter for pretrial proceedings before
Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen.
Brown’s complaint named the following seven Defendants: 1) Warden Steve Rivard; 2)
C/O Siefker; 3) C/O Kellog; 4) RN Sounder; 5) Librarian Bugbee; 6) Grievance Coordinator
Kathleen Sheet-Parsons; and 7) Assistant Deputy Warden Kelly Barnett.
Defendants Rivard, Kellog, Bugbee, Sheet-Parsons, and Barnett have since been
dismissed from this action without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (ECF No. 28).
On June 28, 2018, the two remaining Defendants, Siefker and Sounders, filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 42). The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to file his
response to that motion no later than August 13, 2018. (See ECF No. 43).
Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on August 2, 2018 (ECF No. 46), and his filing
1

consisted of 157 pages.
On February 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“the
R&R”) wherein he recommends that this Court grant the summary judgment motion filed by
Defendants Siefker and Souders and dismiss those two Defendants with prejudice. (ECF No.
50). That R&R expressly advised the parties that “[a]ny objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided
for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).” (R&R at 12). The R&R also
advised that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to
appeal.” (Id.) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff did not file any objections and the time for doing so has passed.
The Court notes that, after the summary judgment motion briefing had concluded, and
after the magistrate judge has issued his R&R, Plaintiff filed: 1) a declaration; 2) another1
motion seeking appointment of counsel; and 3) another brief in response to the summary
judgment motion. None of those filings constitute objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R.
Indeed, they make no reference to the R&R whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the February 13, 2019 R&R, GRANTS the
summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Siefker and Sounder and DISMISSES the
claims against Siefker and Sounders with prejudice.

1

The magistrate judge previously denied Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of
counsel. (ECF No. 47).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: March 11, 2019

3