Cary v. Crews et al

Filing 26

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 25 Report and Recommendation and (2) Granting Defendants' 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRYAN ALLEN CARY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-cv-10489
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CREWS et al.,

Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 25) AND (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 19)
Plaintiff Bryan Allen Cary is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). In this action, Cary brings a civil-rights
claim against several employees of the MDOC. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Cary
appears to allege that the Defendants violated his civil rights when they refused to
move him to protective custody and/or allow him to eat his meals in his cell so that
he could protect himself against threats made against him by other inmates. (See id.)
On August 19, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based
on Cary’s alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies against them before
he filed this action. (See Mot., ECF No. 19.) The motion was referred to the assigned
Magistrate Judge. (See Order, ECF No. 11.)

On December 12, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant the motion (the
“R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge then informed the parties
that if they wished to file an objection to his recommendation, they needed to do so
within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.237-238.)
Cary has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has he contacted the Court
seeking 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) (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 Cary has not filed any objections to the R&R, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of
Defendants’ summary judgment motion is ADOPTED.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED.

Cary’s Complaint is therefore

DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 7, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 7, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

3