Giovanni Ndrea v. City of Utica Mayor Gus Calandrino and City of Utica Police Chief Matthew Kaluzny

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

GIOVANNI NDREA, Case No. 2:24-cv-13240 Plaintiff, Hon. Brandy R. McMillion v. United States District Judge

CITY OF UTICA MAYOR GUS Hon. Anthony P. Patti CALANDRINO and CITY OF United States Magistrate Judge UTICA POLICE CHIEF MATTHEW KALUZNY,

Defendants. _________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 30), GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 22)

Plaintiff Giovanni Ndrea (“Ndrea”) filed this pro se civil rights case against the City of Utica Mayor Gus Calandrino and Utica Police Chief Matthew Kaluzny (collectively, “Defendants”). See generally ECF No. 1. Ndrea alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by removing political signs from his yard and removing him from a City Council meeting. Id. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti for all pretrial matters. ECF No. 8. On July 15, 2025, Defendants moved for summary judgment based on claims of immunity, their ability to enforce order in public meetings, and the lack of a private cause of action to enforce criminal statutes. See generally ECF

No. 22. On February 18, 2026, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 30. 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.186-187. That time has expired and 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 Defendants’

Motion is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims in this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2026 s/Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan HON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge