Opinion
21-cv-10871
12-09-2021
ELIZABETH WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General of the United States, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (1) ADOPTING DISPOSITION RECOMMENDED BY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 23); AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 18) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (ECF NO. 20)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this pro se action, Plaintiff Elizabeth Wright alleges that Defendant Louis DeJoy wrongly denied her application for disability retirement. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On August 31, 2021, Wright filed an Amended Complaint. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.) On September 10, 2021, DeJoy moved to dismiss the action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), asserting a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 18.) Wright later filed a response to the motion and also moved to appoint counsel on September 24, 2021. (ECF No. 21; ECF No. 20.)
On October 6, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant DeJoy's motion and deny Wright's motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 23.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.101.)
Neither party has filed any objections 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). 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).
Accordingly, because the parties have not filed any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant Dejoy's Motion to Dismiss and deny Wright's Motion to Appoint Counsel is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) DeJoy's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and (2) Wright's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 9, 2021, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.