UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEJHAN SANDERS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-11413 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. JOHN PURDOM, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 35) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 30)

Plaintiff DeJhan Sanders is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). In this action, Sanders alleges that the Defendants, several employees of the MDOC, violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On December 18, 2024, the remaining Defendants in this action – Defendants John Purdom, Evan Saunders, and Scott Webster – filed a motion for summary judgment. (See Mot., ECF No. 30.) The motion was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. On July 28, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation in which she recommended that the Court grant the motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 35.) 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.348-349.) No party has filed an objection to the R&R. Nor has any party contacted the Court to ask for 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,

(1985). See also Ivey v. Wilson,

, (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that 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.,

(6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, because no party has filed any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN Dated: August 28, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on August 28, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126