Susan R. Carre v. Colette Nutton, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SUSAN R. CARRE, Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-11628 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman COLETTE NUTTON, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 75) AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 29, 32, 43, 51, 57) In July and August 2025, several Defendants in this action filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff Susan R. Carre’s First Amended Complaint. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 29, 32, 43, 51, 57.) After Defendants filed those motions, Carre moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (see Mot., ECF No. 54), and the parties stipulated to allow Carre to do so (see Order, ECF No. 66). Carre then filed that pleading (see Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 71), and Defendants have now filed new motions to dismiss directed at that pleading. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 73, 78, 79, 82, 88.)

On September 25, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ initially-filed motions to dismiss as moot based on the filing of the Second Amended Complaint (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 75.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if any party wanted to file an objection to the R&R, the party needed to do so within 14 days. (See id., PageID.1463-1464.)

No party has filed an objection to the R&R. 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) (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”). In addition, 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).

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the filing of the Second Amended Complaint moots Defendants’ motions to dismiss directed at the First Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court will ADOPT the recommended disposition of the R&R and DENY Defendants’ initially-filed motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 29, 32, 43, 51, 57) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN Dated: December 3, 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 December 3, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

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