Leonard Dorance Ostrander v. Adam Gilley, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-10768
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LEONARD DORANCE OSTRANDER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-10768 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. ADAM GILLEY, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING IN PART RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 77), (2) DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 56), AND (3) TERMINATING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 73)

In this action, pro se Plaintiff Leonard Dorance Ostrander alleges that he was subjected to excessive force when he was arrested in February 2022. (See Compl, ECF No. 1.) On July 29, 2024, the Court dismissed Ostrander’s Complaint without prejudice due to his failure to provide the Court with his current “address or other contact information” as required under the Court’s Local Rules. (Order, ECF No. 39, PageID.249, quoting E.D. Mich. Local Rule 11.2.) After Ostrander provided the Court his updated address and asked the Court to reinstate his claims, the Court did so. (See Order, ECF No. 51.) The sole remaining Defendant in this case is Adam Gilley, the police officer who allegedly used excessive force during Ostrander’s arrest. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 56.) On August 21, 2025, Gilley filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. (See Mot., ECF No. 73.) On September 3, 2025,

the assigned Magistrate Judge ordered Ostrander to file a response to Gilley’s motion by no later than September 24, 2025. (See Order, ECF No. 74.) On September 23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge’s order was returned to the

Court as undeliverable. (See ECF No. 75.) That suggested that Ostrander had again failed to update his contact information in violation of the Court’s Local Rules. Due to that apparent failure, the Magistrate Judge issued an order requiring Ostrander to show cause, by October 13, 2025, why the Court should not dismiss this action due

to his failure to update his address. (See Order, ECF No. 76.) To date, Ostrander has not filed any response to either Gilley’s summary judgment motion or the Magistrate Judge’s order to show cause.

Based on Ostrander’s failure to respond to both Gilley’s motion and the show cause order, and his failure to update his address, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation on October 24, 2025, recommending that the Court grant Giley’s motion and dismiss Ostrander’s Amended Complaint (the “R&R”). (See

R&R, ECF No. 77.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed Ostrander that if he wished to file objections to the R&R, he needed to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days. (See id., PageID.502-503.) Ostrander has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has he contacted the Court to ask for additional time to file objections. Finally, on November 10, 2025,

the R&R served on Ostrander at the address he provided the Court was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (See ECF No. 78.) 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, (6th Cir. 1987) (where party fails to file “timely objections” to report and recommendation, court may accept that recommendation “without expressing any view on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”).

Likewise, the failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that due to Ostrander’s repeated failures to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and the Magistrate Judge’s orders, his Amended Complaint should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommended disposition of the R&R to the extent that it recommends dismissing

Ostrander’s Amended Complaint. That pleading is DISMISSED. Finally, because the Court is dismissing Ostrander’s Amended Complaint, it TERMINATES AS MOOT Gilley’s pending motion for summary judgment (ECF

No. 73). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 3, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 3, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126