Moore v. Corizon Health, Incorporated

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES MOORE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-13845 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. CORIZON HEALTH INC. et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 82) AND (2) DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN/JANE DOE REGIONAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR DEFENDANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Charles Moore is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. In this pro se civil-rights action, Moore alleges, among other things, that unnamed “Defendant[s] John/Jane Doe, (Regional Health Administrators) failed to address and correct the systemic non-compliance […] with respect to the safety procedures and protocols in place for the safe dispensing of restricted medications.” (See Second Am. Compl. at ¶ 40, ECF No. 48, PageID.325.) Moore took no further steps to identify these unnamed Defendants. On March 25, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order requiring Moore to show cause, by no later than April 15, 2022, as to why his claims against these unnamed Defendants should not be dismissed. (ECF No. 80.) Her order warned Moore that failure to respond could “result in a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed against these [D]efendants.” (Id., PageID.671.) Moore did not respond.

Accordingly, on April 26, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court dismiss the unnamed John/Jane Doe Regional Health Administrator Defendants (See R&R, ECF No. 82.)

At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days (i.e., by no later than May 10, 2022.) (See id., PageID.678.)

Moore has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has he contacted the Court to ask for additional 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). In addition, 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).

Accordingly, because Moore has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss the unnamed John/Jane Doe Regional Health Administrator Defendants is

ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Moore’s claims against the unnamed John/Jane Doe Regional Health Administrator Defendants are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: June 29, 2022

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on June 29, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

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