Allen Aikens v. Collier, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALLEN AIKENS, Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-13508 v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman COLLIER, et al., Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 53) AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEVER AND FOR CHANGE OF VENUE (ECF No. 47) Plaintiff Allen Aikens is a prisoner at the Muskegon Correctional Facility in Muskegon, Michigan. On November 4, 2025, Aikens, proceeding pro se, filed this civil-rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a large number of Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) employees and several additional unnamed and John Doe Defendants. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Now before the Court is a Motion to Sever and for Change of Venue brought by thirty of the MDOC

Defendants. (See Mot., ECF No. 47.) On March 2, 2026, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny the motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 53.) At the conclusion of

the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.297-298.)

The MDOC Defendants who brought the motion have not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor have they contacted the Court to ask for additional time to file objections. 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, 957 (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that where party fails to file “timely objections” to report and recommendation, court may accept that recommendation “[w]ithout expressing any view on the merits of the magistrate’s

conclusions”). Likewise, the failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Tchrs. Loc. 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.

1987). Accordingly, because the MDOC Defendants have not filed any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the disposition recommended by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R is ADOPTED. The Motion to Sever and for Change

of Venue (ECF No. 47) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: April 16, 2026 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on April 16, 2026, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

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