Opinion
Case No. 16-11837
03-11-2019
Ronald Kirk Brown, Plaintiff, v. Steve Rivard, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING 2/13/19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff Ronald Kirk Brown ("Plaintiff"), a prison inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the Court referred the matter for pretrial proceedings before Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen.
Brown's complaint named the following seven Defendants: 1) Warden Steve Rivard; 2) C/O Siefker; 3) C/O Kellog; 4) RN Sounder; 5) Librarian Bugbee; 6) Grievance Coordinator Kathleen Sheet-Parsons; and 7) Assistant Deputy Warden Kelly Barnett.
Defendants Rivard, Kellog, Bugbee, Sheet-Parsons, and Barnett have since been dismissed from this action without prejudice under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (ECF No. 28).
On June 28, 2018, the two remaining Defendants, Siefker and Sounders, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 42). The magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to file his response to that motion no later than August 13, 2018. (See ECF No. 43).
Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on August 2, 2018 (ECF No. 46), and his filing consisted of 157 pages.
On February 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("the R&R") wherein he recommends that this Court grant the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Siefker and Souders and dismiss those two Defendants with prejudice. (ECF No. 50). That R&R expressly advised the parties that "[a]ny objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2)." (R&R at 12). The R&R also advised that the "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal." (Id.) (emphasis added).
Plaintiff did not file any objections and the time for doing so has passed.
The Court notes that, after the summary judgment motion briefing had concluded, and after the magistrate judge has issued his R&R, Plaintiff filed: 1) a declaration; 2) another motion seeking appointment of counsel; and 3) another brief in response to the summary judgment motion. None of those filings constitute objections to the magistrate judge's R&R. Indeed, they make no reference to the R&R whatsoever.
The magistrate judge previously denied Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 47). --------
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the February 13, 2019 R&R, GRANTS the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Siefker and Sounder and DISMISSES the claims against Siefker and Sounders with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge Dated: March 11, 2019