Wilson v. Stewart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION PATRICK D. WILSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-10483 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge C. STEWART AND TRINE, Honorable Patricia T. Morris Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge _______________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT On February 19, 2025, Plaintiff Patrick D. Wilson, a prisoner at Cooper Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a pro se Complaint, alleging that Defendants Mrs. C. Stewart and Ms. Trine failed to provide special accommodations for a medical need, which led to Plaintiff’s fall and further injury. ECF No. 1. On February 26, 2025, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis was granted, and the case was stayed as Plaintiff participated in the Sixth Circuit’s Pro Se Prisoner Early Mediation Program. ECF Nos. 5; 6. But mediation proved unsuccessful, so the stay was lifted. ECF No. 10. On June 20, 2025, the United States Marshal Service acknowledged Defendants’ receipt of service. ECF No. 12. Ultimately, on July 15, 2025, Defendants waived service. ECF No. 14; 15. On July 7, 2025, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris to resolve all pretrial matters. ECF No. 13.

On September 3, 2025, without Defendants being in default, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment. ECF No. 21. On September 11, 2025, Defendants filed a timely answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 22. On September 15, 2025, Judge Morris issued a report (R&R) recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment, ECF No. 21, because Defendants had not defaulted. ECF No. 25.

Judge Morris gave the Parties 14 days to object, but they did not do so. They have therefore forfeited their right to appeal Judge Morris’s findings. Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). And the R&R contains no clear error. See generally ECF No. 25. As a result, the R&R, ECF No. 25, will be adopted, and Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment, ECF No. 21, will be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 25, is ADOPTED.

Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment, ECF No. 21, is DENIED.

This is not a final order and does not close this case.

Dated: October 8, 2025 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge