Galloway v. Washington

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

WALTER GALLOWAY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-10118

v. Hon. Brandy R. McMillion Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti RAPHAEL WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 43) AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S MAY 27, 2025 ORDER (ECF NO. 42) AND PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) AND E.D. MICH. LR 41.2 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Walter Galloway (“Galloway”), proceeding pro se, together with Michael David McCarren, Maurice Allen-Julius Stewart, and Levertis Riley, IV, all pretrial detainees in the Wayne County Jail, brought this prisoner civil rights action against Defendants Raphael Washington, Robert Dunlap, Anthony Boyer, Pamela Donoho-Rose, Karmen Ramirez, Kenneth Toth, Tonia Williams, Cierra Crawford, and Pryor (collectively, “Defendants”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging their conditions of confinement. See generally ECF No. 1.1 All pretrial matters were

1 The case was originally filed as one joint case, assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-2329-BRM-APP. The matter was then severed, and Plaintiffs Stewart, Riley, and Galloway were each assigned their own case numbers. See ECF Nos. 25, 33. assigned to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. See ECF Nos. 14, 15. After

Galloway’s case was severed, the Court ordered him to provide the Court with the following information, no later than May 3, 2025: (i) his current contact information; (ii) his intention to continue prosecuting this case separate from his co- plaintiffs; and (iii) an amended complaint limited to his specific claims, which made clear the individuals or entities he was suing, and which claims he was making. See ECF No. 39, PageID.404. The Order warned Galloway that failure to respond would result in dismissal of his lawsuit with prejudice. Id. Galloway responded in

early May 2025, that he intended to proceed and provided the Court with his updated address but failed to include an amended complaint. See ECF No. 41. On May 27, 2025, the Court extended the deadline in which Galloway needed to file his amended

complaint to June 30, 2025. ECF No. 42. The Court again warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of his case with prejudice. Id. To date, Galloway has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he requested additional time in which to do so.

On September 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that the undersigned dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), E.D. Mich. LR 41.2, and for failure to comply with the Court’s May 27, 2025 Order extending deadline to file an

amended complaint. See ECF No. 43. 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.421-422.

As of the date of this order, October 10, 2025—28 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 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 no objections to the R&R have been filed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of dismissal is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), E.D. Mich. LR 41.2, and for failure to comply with the Court’s May 27, 2025 Order extending deadline to file an amended complaint. This is a final order that closes the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2025 s/Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan HON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge