Brown v. Haider et al

Filing 48

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 45 Report and Recommendation and (2) Granting Defendants' 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Download PDF
Case 4:21-cv-11565-MFL-PTM ECF No. 48, PageID.277 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID BROWN, Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-11565 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. DR. DONALD HAIDERER, et al., Defendant. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 45) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 25) In this action, pro se Plaintiff David Brown alleges that the Defendants violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights, the Americans with Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Brown’s claims arise out medical care that he received while he was in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. (See id.) On December 2, 2021, Defendants Rickey Coleman and Laura Brown moved for summary judgment on the basis that Brown failed to exhaust his claims against them prior to filing this action. (See Mot., ECF No. 25.) The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, and on May 17, 2022, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Brown’s claims against Coleman and Laura Brown without prejudice (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF 1 Case 4:21-cv-11565-MFL-PTM ECF No. 48, PageID.278 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 3 No. 45.) 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.269-270.) Brown 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). 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 Brown has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Defendants’ motion is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED and (2) Brown’s claims against Defendants Coleman and Laura Brown are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.             s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 1, 2022 2 Case 4:21-cv-11565-MFL-PTM ECF No. 48, PageID.279 Filed 09/01/22 Page 3 of 3 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on September 1, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?