UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DAVID MCCARREN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:23-cv-13129

v. Hon. Brandy R. McMillion Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti RAPHAEL WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 49) AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S JULY 1, 2025 ORDER (ECF NO. 47) AND PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) AND E.D. MICH. LR 41.2 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Michael David McCarren (“McCarren”), proceeding pro se, together with Walter Galloway, Maurice Allen-Julius Stewart, and Levertis Riley, IV, all pretrial detainees in the Wayne County Jail, brought this prisoner civil rights action against Defendants Raphael Washington, Robert Dunlap, Anthony Boyer, Pamela Donoho-Rose, Karmen Ramirez, Kenneth Toth, Tonia Williams, Cierra Crawford, and Pryor (collectively, “Defendants”), under

, challenging their conditions of confinement. See generally ECF No. 1.1 All pretrial matters were

1 The case was originally filed as one joint case, assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-2329-BRM-APP. The matter was then severed, and Plaintiffs Stewart, Riley, and Galloway were each assigned their own case numbers. See ECF Nos. 25, 33. assigned to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. See ECF Nos. 14, 15. After the other

co-plaintiffs’ cases were severed, the Court ordered McCarren to file an amended complaint limited to his specific claims, which made clear the individuals or entities he was suing, and which claims he was making, on or before May 3, 2025. See ECF No. 43, PageID.411. The Order warned McCarren that failure to respond would

result in dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice.

at PageID.412. On July 1, 2025, the Court extended the deadline in which McCarren needed to file his amended complaint to July 21, 2025. ECF No. 47. The Court warned that no further

extensions would be granted and that failure to comply could result in dismissal of his case with prejudice.

at PageID.556. To date, McCarren has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he requested additional time in which to do so. On September 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the undersigned dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), E.D. Mich. LR 41.2, and for failure to comply with the Court’s July 1, 2025 Order extending deadline to file an amended

complaint. See ECF No. 49. At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek review of his recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R.

at PageID.575- 576. As of the date of this order, October 17, 2025—30 days since the Magistrate

Judge filed the R&R—none of the parties have filed objections to the R&R or contacted the Court to ask for more time to file objections. The Court notes that the R&R was returned to the Court as undeliverable with a notation that McCarren was released from custody. See ECF No. 50. However, McCarren was properly notified

of his responsibility to promptly notify the Court of address changes and that failure to do so could result in dismissal of his case. See ECF No. 10, PageID.158. Nonetheless, 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 a party’s failure to timely object to a report and recommendation allows a court to accept the recommendation “without expressing any views on the merits of the

magistrate’s conclusions”). Similarly, failure to object to an R&R forfeits any further right to appeal. See Berkshire v. Dahl,

(6th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that a party forfeits their right to appeal by failing to timely file

objections to an R&R). Accordingly, because no objections to the R&R have been filed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of dismissal is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), E.D. Mich. LR 41.2, and for failure to comply with the Court’s July 1, 2025 Order extending deadline to file an amended complaint. This is a final order that closes the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 17, 2025 /s/ Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan HON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge