Moon v. Sissen

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID MOON a/k/a AZELIE DELAINA MOON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-12850

v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge MATTHEW SISSEN, et al., Honorable Kimberly G. Altman Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 50), GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF EXHAUSTION (ECF No. 34), AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUSPEND MISCONDUCTS, POINTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION OF CASE (ECF No. 39)

On April 24, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman issued a report and recommendation (R&R) addressing two motions filed in this case. See ECF No. 50. The first motion addressed by the R&R is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint and for summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion. See ECF No. 34. The R&R recommends granting Defendants’ motion in part to the extent that the only claims in Plaintiff’s complaint that should survive are (1) Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against Perry for requiring her to wear a beard guard; (2) Plaintiff’s due process claim against Defendant Campbell for denying her search accommodation; (3) Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against all Defendants except Scudder; (4) Plaintiff’s ELCRA claims against all Defendants except

Scudder; and (5) all claims against Defendant John Doe. See ECF No. 50 at PageID.530; 535. The second motion addressed by the R&R is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Suspend

Misconducts, Points, and Administrative Sanctions Pending Final Disposition of the Case,” ECF No. 39, which was properly construed by Judge Altman as a motion for a preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 50 at PageID.531–34. The R&R recommends denial of Plaintiff’s motion. See id.

Judge Altman provided 14 days to object to the R&R, but neither party did so. All parties have therefore forfeited their right to appeal Judge Altman’s findings. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). Moreover, there is no prejudicial clear error in the report. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 50, is ADOPTED. Further, it is ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment on the Basis of Exhaustion, ECF No. 34, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART1;

1 Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 34, is denied in part to the extent that the following claims will move forward: (1) Moon’s equal protection claim against Perry for requiring her to wear a beard guard; (2) Moon’s due process claim against Defendant 2. Defendant Scudder is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this case for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Suspend Misconducts, Points, and Administrative Sanctions Pending Final Disposition of the Case, ECF No. 39, is DENIED.

This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case. /s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge Dated: May 20, 2025

Campbell for denying her search accommodation; (3) Moon’s First Amendment claims against all Defendants except Scudder; (4) Moon’s ELCRA claims against all Defendants except Scudder; and (5) all claims against Defendant John Doe. See ECF No. 50 at PageID.530; 535.