Diemond v. Nagy

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

RYAN CHARLES DIEMOND,

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-12184 v. Honorable Robert J. White NOAH NAGY,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Ryan Charles Diemond filed this prisoner civil rights case after the warden defendant allegedly denied him access to the prison’s legal writer program. See ECF No. 1. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. See ECF No. 23. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the prison’s grievance process before filing suit. See ECF No. 17. And Magistrate Judge Stafford recommended denying Defendant’s motion. See ECF No. 29. Despite being warned that a failure “to timely file specific objections” to Magistrate Judge Stafford’s Report waives “any further [right of] appeal,” ECF No. 29, PageID.410-411, neither party filed timely objections. This failure amounts to a procedural default and frees the Court from any obligation to review the Report’s conclusions de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d

947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981) (“a party shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal”); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving review even at the district court

level”); White v. A.J.M. Packaging Corp., No. 23-1618, 2024 WL 3320451, at *1 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024) (while “exceptional circumstances may warrant departure from this forfeiture rule … no such circumstances are present in this case”). Magistrate Judge Stafford gives several reasons why Defendant’s motion

should be denied: (1) it was obvious that Plaintiff’s grievance targeted Defendant; (2) Defendant failed to compare the earlier grievance the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) cited to justify rejecting Plaintiff’s grievance as duplicative;

(3) Plaintiff’s grievance was, in fact, not duplicative; and (4) even if the grievance was duplicative, MDOC erred by rendering the issues raised in it non-grievable. ECF No. 29, PageID.405-409. After reviewing the record, the Court deems Magistrate Judge Stafford’s conclusions factually based and legally sound. Thus:

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stafford’s Report (ECF No. 29) and DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17).

Dated: October 18, 2024 s/Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge