Montez v. Loxton

Filing 55

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DECEMBER 12, 2024 54 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (AFla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRANDON MONTEZ,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 22-cv-12526
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
JAMES LOXTON, et al.
Defendants.
________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
DECEMBER 12, 2024 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Brandon Montez, proceeding pro se, commenced this lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants James Loxton, Corey Bruck,
James Hamameh, George Stephenson, John Doe, and Brandi Qualls (collectively
“Defendants”) on October 5, 2022.1 (See ECF Nos. 1, 28.) Plaintiff alleges that,
while he was incarcerated at Macomb Correctional Facility, Defendant Loxton
allowed two inmates to enter his cell. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendant locked the inmates inside his cell and the two inmates sexually
assaulted him. (Id.) The matter has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Anthony P.
Patti for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all nonThe matter was transferred to this district on October 20, 2022. (See ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 13, 2023, adding additional
defendants. (ECF No. 28.)
1

1

dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and
recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(ECF No. 16.)
On March 4, 2024, Defendants Bruck and Hamameh filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF No. 44.) On April 3, 2024, Defendants
Qualls and Stephenson also filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 50.) Magistrate
Judge Patti entered orders requiring Plaintiff to respond to the motions by April 18,
2024, and July 5, 2024, respectively. (See ECF Nos. 46, 52.) Plaintiff did not file
responses to either motion. As a result, on November 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge
Patti ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, by December 6, 2024, as to: (1)
why this case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2 for failure to comply with the
court’s orders and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute
and (2) a reasonable, extended deadline for filing a response to Defendants’
pending motions to dismiss, should the court permit responses. (ECF No. 53 at Pg
ID 232-33.)
Plaintiff did not respond to Magistrate Judge Patti’s Order to Show Cause.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
on December 12, 2024, recommending that the Court dismiss this matter pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and deem moot Defendants’ pending
2

motions. (ECF No. 54 at Pg ID 237-38.) At the conclusion of his R&R,
Magistrate Judge Patti advises the parties that they may object to and seek review
of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. (Id. at Pg ID 238.) He
further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” (Id. at Pg ID 238-39.) Neither
party filed objections to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Patti. The Court therefore adopts the R&R.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 44, 50)
are MOOT.

s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 6, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, January 6, 2025, by electronic and/or
U.S. First Class mail.
s/Aaron Flanigan
Case Manager

3