Cary v. ARF RTP Staff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRYAN ALLEN CARY,

Plaintiff, Civil No. 24-cv-10488 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman ARF RTP STAFF, Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 27) AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 18) 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 two employees of the MDOC. (See Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl., ECF No. 7.) Cary appears to allege that the Defendants wrongly assigned him to a top bunk despite knowing that doing so could be dangerous to Cary’s health. (See id.) On August 8, 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. 18.) The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (See Order, ECF No. 12.)

On December 12, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the Court deny the motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 27.) 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.254.)

Defendants have not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor have the Defendants 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 the Defendants have 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.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is DENIED.

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 (313) 234-5126