Aries Evans v. Brian Tenniswood, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ARIES EVANS, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-10908 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman BRIAN TENNISWOOD, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 28), (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 1), AND (3) TERMINATING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 24) AS MOOT Plaintiff Aries Evans is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. On April 9, 2024, Evans filed this action against Defendants Brian Tenniswood and Amanda Peaks. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Evans claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when he was incarcerated at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Marquette, Michigan. (See id.) On June 5, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (See Mot., ECF No. 24.) The assigned Magistrate Judge then ordered Evans to file a response to that motion by no later than July 7, 2025. (See Order, ECF No. 24.) Evans failed to do so. To date, he has not filed any response to Defendants’ motion or the Magistrate Judge’s order. Nor has he contacted the Court to ask for additional time to respond.

In addition, Evans has failed to comply with other deadlines set by the Magistrate Judge, including the deadline to file a preliminary witness list. As the Magistrate Judge has pointed out, Evans “has not filed anything in this case since December 3, 2024.” (R&R, ECF No. 28, PageID.136.)

On February 24, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the Court (1) dismiss Evans’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 42.1 based on Evans’ failure to prosecute his claims and his failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s orders and (2) terminate Defendants’ currently-pending motion to dismiss as moot (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 28.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his recommendations, they needed to file written objections with the Court within days. (See id., PageID.139-140.)

No party has filed an objection to the R&R. Nor has any party contacted the Court to ask for additional time to respond. 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).

Based on the lack of objections to the R&R, the Court ADOPTS the recommended disposition of the R&R. Evans’ Complaint is therefore DISMISSED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 11, 2026

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on March 11, 2026, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

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