Baytops v. Slominski et al

Filing 50

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 49 Report and Recommendation, (2) Granting Defendant Suszek's 37 Motion to Dismiss, and (3) Granting Defendant Slominski's 39 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 50, PageID.554 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MILTON BAYTOPS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 20-cv-11630
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
STEVE SLOMINSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 49), (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT
SUSZEK’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 37), AND (3) GRANTING
DEFENDANT SLOMINSKI’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 39)
Plaintiff Milton Baytops is a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections. On June 8, 2020, Baytops filed this action against
several Defendants. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Baytops alleges, among other things,
that his constitutional rights were violated during a police raid at his home in 2019.
(See id.) The only claim that remains live in this case is for excessive force against
Defendants Lincoln Suszek,1 Steve Slominski, and certain members of the Michigan
State Police Emergency Support Team.

1

Defendant Suszek is identified on the docket as “Lincoln Suszok.”
1

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 50, PageID.555 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 3

On May 5, 2021, Defendant Suszek filed a motion to dismiss and/or for
summary judgment. (See Suszek Mot., ECF No. 37.) On May 14, 2021, Defendant
Slominski also filed a motion for summary judgment. (See Slominski Mot., ECF No.
39.) Both motions were referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (See Notice of
Referral, ECF No. 22.)
On December 14, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant both motions and
dismiss Suszek and Slominski from this action (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No.
49.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that
if they wanted to seek review of his recommendation, they needed to file specific
objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.551-552.)
Baytops has not filed any objections to the R&R. 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). In addition, 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 Baytops has not filed any objections to the R&R, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant (1)
Defendant Suzsek’s motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 37)
2

Case 4:20-cv-11630-MFL-APP ECF No. 50, PageID.556 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 3

and (2) Defendant Slominski’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39) is
ADOPTED. Those motions are GRANTED and Defendants Suszek and Slominski
are DISMISSED from this action. The only remaining claim in this case is Baytops’
excessive force claim against the members of the Michigan State Police Emergency
Support Team identified in the R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Dated: February 8, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 8, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

3