Dennis Traylor v. Carla Gross, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: January 12, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-11183
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENNIS TRAYLOR, Case No. 2:25-cv-11183 Plaintiff, Hon. Brandy R. McMillion v. United States District Judge

CARLA GROSS, et al., Hon. Elizabeth A. Stafford United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 35) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 19, 32)

Plaintiff Dennis Traylor (“Traylor”) filed this pro se prisoner civil rights case against Nurses Carla Gross (“Gross”) and Melynda Reuther (“Reuther”), Dr. Robert Crompton (“Crompton”), and Nurse Practitioner Jane Doe (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF No. 1. Traylor alleged constitutional violations based on an improper surgery and denial of medication. Id. He asserts that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial matters. ECF No. 13. On July 18, 2025, Nurses Gross and Reuther moved for summary judgment based on Traylor’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See ECF No. 19. Dr. Crompton filed a similar Motion for Summary

Judgment on October 1, 2025. See ECF No. 32. Despite being given extended time for response, Traylor never filed a formal response to the motions for summary judgment. See ECF No. 23. Instead, he filed several letters with the Court, none of which respond to the substance of Defendants’ motions. See ECF Nos. 25, 27, 28,

31, 34. On December 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’

Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 35. 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.337-338. Traylor failed to file proper objections with the Court,

as required by the R&R, but instead filed a 2-page letter in which he questions why his case is being dismissed and reiterates his deliberate indifference claims. See ECF No. 36, PageID.339. Even if the Court were to consider this letter as an objection,

the Court finds that is lacks specificity and provides no legal basis to overturn the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Objections must be stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted); Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “A

general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505,

509 (6th Cir. 1991). Similarly, an objection that “merely restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court

is not obligated to address objections made in this form because the objections fail to identify the specific errors in the magistrate judge’s proposed recommendations, and such objections undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate’s Act, which serves to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial resources. See Owens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-cv-47, 2013 WL 1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013) (citations and emphasis omitted). The failure to properly object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. 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 Traylor fails to properly object to the R&R, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Defendants’ Motions is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Gross and Reuther’s Motion

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Dr. Crompton’s Motion for

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Defendant Jane Doe Defendant are DISMISSED, as they are the same claims raised against the other Defendants and have not been exhausted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is a Final Order that closes the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 12, 2026 s/Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan HON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge