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)

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
[phone]

3