Sedore v. Washington
This text of Sedore v. Washington (Sedore v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT SEDORE,
Plaintiff, Case No. 23-10647 Hon. Jonathan J.C. Grey v. Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris
HEIDI WASHINGTON et al.,
Defendants. _________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 135)
Plaintiff Scott Sedore filed this lawsuit against defendants Heidi Washington, Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), John Doe “Executive Policy Team Members,” Noah Nagy, Charles Jamsen, and Jimmy Jarrett on March 21, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) In the lawsuit, he alleges that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (Id.) This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris’ Report and Recommendation dated February 20, 2025. (ECF No. 135.) In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Washington’s and MDOC’s motion for summary judgment due to Scott Sedore’s failure
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on any of these claims. No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds
that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in
its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith
v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation dated February 20, 2025 (ECF No. 135) is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Washington’s and MDOC’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 110) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause of action is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to defendants Washington and MDOC. SO ORDERED.
s/Jonathan J.C. Grey JONATHAN J.C. GREY Dated: September 4, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Certificate of Service
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 4, 2025.
s/ S. Osorio Sandra Osorio Case Manager
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sedore v. Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sedore-v-washington-mied-2025.