Moore v. Brown et al

Filing 34

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 27 Report and Recommendation and (2) Granting Defendants' 20 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES MOORE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 23-cv-11298
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
TAVON BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 27) AND (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 20)
Plaintiff Charles Moore is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). On May 31, 2023, Moore filed this pro
se civil-rights Complaint against several Defendants who work at the G. Robert
Cotton Correctional Facility where he is currently incarcerated. (See Compl., ECF
No. 1.) Moore says, among other things, that the Defendants violated his Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process, his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment, and his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(the “ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act (the “RA Act”) when the Defendants failed to
provide him appropriate medical care and/or denied grievances that he had filed
related to his medical care.

1

On December 26, 2023, MDOC employees Taron Brown, Mario Matthews,
Joshua Czarniowski, Sirena Landfair, Crystal Trout, and Brian Stricklin (the
“MDOC Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. (See
Mot., ECF No. 20.) The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (See
Order, ECF No. 11.) On January 2, 2024, the Magistrate Judge ordered Moore to
file a response to MDOC Defendants’ motion by no later than January 23, 2024. (See
Order, ECF No. 21.) Moore asked the Magistrate Judge to extend the time for him
to respond (see Mot., ECF No. 24), and on February 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge
extended the time for Moore to file his response until March 1, 2024. (See Dkt.)
Despite that extension, Moore never filed a response in opposition to the MDOC
Defendants’ motion.
On May 15, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
in which she recommended that the Court (1) sua sponte dismiss Moore’s claims
under the Fourteenth Amendment, the ADA, and the RA Act with respect to all
Defendants and (2) grant the MDOC Defendants’ motion to dismiss Moore’s Eighth
Amendment claim (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 27.) At the conclusion of the
R&R, the Magistrate Judge 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., PageID.185-186.)

2

Moore has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has he contacted the
Court to ask for additional time to file objections. 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). See also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, (6th Cir. 1987)
(explaining that where party fails to file “timely objections” to report and
recommendation, court may accept that recommendation “without expressing any
view on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”). Likewise, 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).
Accordingly, because Moore has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition
described in the R&R is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1) Moore’s claims against all Defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment,
the ADA, and the RA Act are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e);
(2) the MDOC Defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment
(ECF No. 20) is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Moore’s Eighth
Amendment claim; and

3

(3) Moore’s Eighth Amendment claim against the MDOC Defendants is
DISMISSED.
The only claims that remain in this action are Moore’s claims under the Eighth
Amendment against Defendants Dennis Reynolds and Crystal Brown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: June 3, 2024
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on June 3, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

4