Ostrander v. Gilley

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,

Defendants. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 71) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 58)

Plaintiff Leonard Dorance Ostrander is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. In this action, Ostrander alleges that Defendant Adam Gilley used excessive force during an arrest in February 2022. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 56.) One week after Ostrander filed his Amended Complaint, he filed a motion for summary judgment. (See Mot., ECF No. 58.) On June 6, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny the motion without prejudice (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 71.) The Magistrate Judge explained that the motion was “premature,” and she told Ostrander that he could “move for summary judgment again after discovery closes and by the dispositive motion deadline of August 21, 2025.” (Id., PageID.422-423.) The Magistrate Judge then informed the parties that if they wished to file an objection to her recommendation, they needed to do so within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.424-425.)

Ostrander has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has Ostrander contacted the Court seeking 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). 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). Nonetheless, the Court

has reviewed the R&R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Ostrander’s motion is premature and should be denied. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Ostrander’s summary judgment motion is ADOPTED.

The motion (ECF No. 58) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN Dated: June 26, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on June 26, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

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