Austin Raymond Childs v. Unknown Oswald, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-11920
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

AUSTIN RAYMOND CHILDS, Case No. 2:24-cv-11920 Plaintiff, Hon. Brandy R. McMillion v. United States District Judge

UNKNOWN OSWALD, et al., Hon. Elizabeth A Stafford United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. _________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 21) AND GRANTING DEFENDANT OSWALD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 16)

Plaintiff Austin Raymond Childs (“Childs”) filed this pro se prisoner civil rights case against Defendant Correction Officer Oswald (“Oswald”), John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, and Jane Doe (collectively, the “Defendants”) in their individual and official capacities. ECF No. 1. Childs alleged violations under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the Defendants failed to prevent him from being assaulted by another inmate and failed to adequately respond to his grievance after the assault. Id. On October 31, 2024, the Court dismissed Childs’s claims against John Doe #2, John Doe #3 and Jane Doe, as part of its initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). ECF No. 7. Only Childs’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Oswald and John Doe #1 survived initial screening. Id. at PageID.29.

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial matters. ECF No. 17. On June 2, 2025, Oswald moved for summary judgment. See ECF No. 16. Despite being given extended time for response, Childs never responded to the motion for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 19, 20.

On October 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Oswald’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 21. At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge

advised the parties that to seek review of her recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R. Id. at PageID.98-99. As of the date of this order, November 17, 2025—33 days since the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R—neither party has 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 timely object to a report and recommendation 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 timely file objections to an R&R). Accordingly, because neither party objected to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Oswald’s motion is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Oswald’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED. This is a final order that closes the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2025 s/Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge