Ashton Smith v. Veronica Hrywnak

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ASHTON SMITH,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-12655 Hon. Brandy R. McMillion v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

VERONICA HRYWNAK,

Defendant. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 20) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION AND JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF NO. 16)

Plaintiff Ashton Smith (“Smith”), a prisoner of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendant “V. Hryneck” acted with deliberate indifference towards him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See generally ECF No. 1. On November 18, 2025, Smith filed an Amended Complaint, indicating that the Defendant’s correct name is Veronica Hrywnak (“Dr. Hrywnak”). ECF No. 10. On December 1, 2025, this Court referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. ECF No. 12. This case arises from events occurring in or around late September 2024

and January 2025, while Smith was housed at the St. Louis Correctional Facility (“SLF”).1 Smith alleges that he has a serious eye condition that requires specialized contact lenses called a scleral lens, as well as specific cleaning and

application solutions. ECF No. 10. Smith further alleges that during the time period at issue, Dr. Hrynwak, an optometrist, wrongfully deprived him of single- use vials of a particular cleaning solution (“AddiPaks”) he required to wear his scleral lenses effectively. Id.

On February 24, 2026, Smith filed a Motion for Emergency Injunction and Judicial Notice (ECF No. 16) alleging that three MRF employees, who are not parties to this case, failed to order the requisite amounts of the contact solutions

he requires and instead provided him with substitutes that were not FDA-approved for scleral lenses, causing him pain and irritation. ECF No. 16, PageID.82-84. Smith requests that the Court compel three persons who are unrelated to the instant suit, employed at a different facility, and by a different employer, to

procure the correct solutions for him. ECF No. 16.

1 At the time the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was issued, Smith was housed at the Macomb Correctional Facility (“MRF”). ECF No. 1, PageID.1. On April 7, 2026, Smith notified the Court that he was moved back to SLF. See ECF No. 22. On March 10, 2026, the Court held a Zoom hearing on Smith’s Motion for

Emergency Injunction and Judicial Notice. ECF No. 19. Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) on March 16, 2026, recommending that the Court deny Smith’s Motion for failure to demonstrate that

he is entitled to the emergency injunctive relief he requests. ECF No. 20. At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek review of his recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R. Id. at PageID.411-412. As of the date of

this order—36 days since the Magistrate Judge filed the R&R—none of the parties have filed objections to the R&R or contacted the Court to ask for more 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, 957-58 (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that a party’s failure to object to a report and recommendation timely allows a court to accept the recommendation “without expressing any views on the merits of the

magistrate’s conclusions”). Similarly, failure to object to an R&R forfeits any further right to appeal. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that a party forfeits their right to appeal by failing to file objections

to an R&R timely). Accordingly, because no objections to the R&R have been filed, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Smith’s Motion is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency

Injunction and Judicial Notice (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 22, 2026 s/Brandy R. McMillion Hon. Brandy R. McMillion United States District Judge