Opinion
23-cv-11490
11-04-2024
QUATRIAL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY VOURHEES, et al., Defendant.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 33) AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 13, 17)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this action, Plaintiff Quatrial Smith alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when he was assaulted in his prison cell. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On October 13, 2023, Defendant Genesee County Jail filed a motion to dismiss, and on October 25, 2023, Defendant Vourhees also filed a motion to dismiss. (See Motions, ECF Nos. 13, 17.) Thereafter, Smith filed a motion to amend his Complaint. (See Mot., ECF No. 22.)
The motions were referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. On June 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a combined order and report and recommendation in which, in relevant part, he (1) granted Smith's motion to file an Amended Complaint and (2) recommended that the Court deny Defendants' motions to dismiss as moot in light of his decision to allow Smith to file an Amended Complaint (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 33.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wished to object to his rulings, they needed to file objections with the Court within 14 days. (See id., PageID.202-203.)
No party has filed an objection to the R&R. The failure to object to a report and recommendation 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 a report and recommendation 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). Finally, Defendants have now filed an Answer to Smith's Amended Complaint. (See Answer, ECF No. 34.)
Accordingly, for all of the reasons explained above, the recommended disposition of the R&R (ECF No. 33) is ADOPTED and Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 13, 17) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.