Chaverst v. Well Path Medical et al

Filing 37

ORDER Overruling 30 Objections, Adopting 29 Report and Recommendation, Granting 19 Motion to Dismiss filed by Laura Lawson, Granting 12 Motion to Dismiss filed by Well Path Medical, Victoria Janowiecki and Sua Sponte Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by District Judge Shalina D. Kumar. (THal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERRANCE GLENN
CHAVERST,

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 23-11513
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

WELL PATH MEDICAL et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 30),
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 29),
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF NOS. 12, 19),
AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
(ECF NO. 1)
I.

Introduction
Pro se plaintiff Terrance Glenn Chaverst, a prisoner in the custody of

the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed this complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging defendants Wellpath LLC, Victoria
Janowiecki, Lisa Harvey, and Laura Lawson were deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they
failed to adequately treat his ingrown toenails. ECF No. 1. This case was
referred to the magistrate judge for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). ECF No. 16.

Page 1 of 4

Defendants Wellpath, Janowiecki, and Lawson moved to dismissed.
ECF No. 12, 19. On November 17, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant
defendants’ motions and dismiss Chaverst’s complaint. 1 ECF No. 29. On
December 19, 2023, Chaverst filed an objection. ECF No. 30.
II.

Analysis
As noted in the R&R, “the parties to this action may object to and

seek review of this Report and Recommendation but are required to file
any objections within 14 days of service, as provided in the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d).” ECF No. 29, PageID.200.
“A failure to file timely objections not only waives the right to de novo
review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation but dispenses
with the need for the district court to conduct any review.” Jones v. Warden,
Ross Corr. Inst., 2013 WL 6230365, at *2, (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2023)
(citations omitted). Chaverst failed to file timely objections to the R&R, but
even if the Court were to accept his late objection, the Court would overrule
it.
Defendant Harvey did not file a motion to dismiss, but the R&R
recommends sua sponte dismissal of the complaint against her. See ECF
No. 29, PageID.199.
Page 2 of 4
1

A party’s failure to file objections to certain conclusions of the R&R
waives any further right to appeal on those issues. See Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the R&R releases
the Court from its duty to independently review those issues. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Absent “compelling reasons,” arguments,
or issues that were not presented to the magistrate may not be presented
in objections to the R&R. Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th
Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir.
1998)).
Moreover, objections must be clear so that the district court
can discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.
In sum, the objections must be clear and specific enough that
the court can squarely address them on the merits. And, when
objections are merely perfunctory responses rehashing the
same arguments set forth in the original petition, reviewing
courts should review a Report and Recommendation for clear
error.
Carroll v. Lamour, 2021 WL 1207359, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2021)
(internal citations, quotations, and marks omitted).
Chaverst’s objection fails to challenge a specific conclusion of the
R&R and thus would be overruled even if it had been timely filed.

Page 3 of 4

III.

Conclusion
The Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s R&R. ECF No. 29.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF No. 12, 19) are GRANTED, and
the case is DISMISSED.

Dated: March 27, 2024

s/ Shalina D. Kumar
SHALINA D. KUMAR
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4