Jerroll Sanders v. Judy A. Hartsfield et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 6, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-10314
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERROLL SANDERS, Plaintiff, Case No. 25-10314 v. Honorable Shalina D. Kumar Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman JUDY A. HARTSFIELD et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 35)

Plaintiff Jerroll Sanders (“Sanders”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action against defendants Judge Judy A. Hartsfield, Wayne County, Michigan, Judge Maci T. Gaines, and John Does 1-20 alleging violations of the Racketeer Influences and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) as well as violations of her constitutional rights and state law claims arising out of and in connection with guardianship proceedings in the Wayne County Probate Court. See ECF No. 22. This case was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 9. Judge Hartsfield and Wayne County Probate Court filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike Sanders’ amended complaint, ECF Nos. 12, Page 1 of 3 23, and Sanders filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. ECF No. 28. The magistrate judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Sanders’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be granted, and Judge Hartsfield’s and Wayne County Probate Court’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike be

denied as moot because they are no longer named defendants in the proposed second amended complaint. ECF No. 35. The parties did not file objections to the R&R and the time to do so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely

objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of the right for further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s

factual or legal conclusion, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373–74 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp.

2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the part of the report and recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any standard.”). However, there is some authority that

Page 2 of 3 a district court is required to review the R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no timely

objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Therefore, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 35) and GRANTS Sanders’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 28). Judge Hartsfield’s and Wayne County Probate Court’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) and motion to strike (ECF No. 23) are

DENIED AS MOOT. Sanders must file her second amended complaint by February 19, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: February 6, 2026 s/Shalina D. Kumar Shalina D. Kumar United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3