Anthony Harp v. Victoria Hallett, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Anthony Harp,

Plaintiff, Case No. 19-cv-13789

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Victoria Hallett, et al., Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [62]

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’ Report and Recommendation recommending the Court dismiss the John Doe Defendants (ECF No. 62), who are referred to in the complaint as “Unknown Transportation officers.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) The parties were required to file specific written objections, if any, within fourteen days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). Plaintiff Anthony Harp filed objections. (ECF No. 64.) In his filing, Plaintiff objects to the case being dismissed; however, he does not oppose the dismissal of the John Doe Defendants. Plaintiff states that “the Doe defendants should be dismissed.” (Id. at PageID.495.) He asks that the Court “not . . . dismiss the case and dismiss the Doe Defendants.” (Id. at PageID.497.) Thus, Plaintiff apparently does not object to the R&R’s

recommendation to dismiss the John Doe Defendants. The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and

concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly, The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 62) is ADOPTED; and The John Doe Defendants are DISMISSED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 20, 2025 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 20, 2025.

s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager

1 By failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties have forfeited any further right of appeal. United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019).