Stratz v. Herbert

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-12512
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

BERNARD ALLEN STRATZ, Plaintiff, Case No. 23-12512 Honorable Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

HERBERT et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 22), AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)

Plaintiff Bernard Allen Stratz (“Stratz”), proceeding pro se, initiated this case against multiple defendants while serving a custodial sentence at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (“JCF”) in Jackson, Michigan, alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1. This case was referred to the magistrate judge for all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). ECF No. 18. On December 10, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion (ECF No. 22), and the assigned magistrate judge issued an order (ECF NO. 23) requiring Stratz to file a response to defendants’ motion by January 31, 2025. Stratz did not file a Page 1 of 3 response, or take any other action in this case, and on April 22, 2025, the magistrate judge ordered him to show cause why his case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 24. Stratz did not file a response to the order to show cause. Accordingly, on May 22, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending that the Court dismiss Stratz complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and E.D. Mich. LR 42.1. ECF No. 25. Stratz did not file an objection to the R&R, and the time to do so has

expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of the right for further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that

Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusion, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-74 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived

subsequent review of the matter”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the part of the report and recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any

Page 2 of 3 standard.”). However, there is some authority that a district court is required to review the R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory

Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Therefore, the Court has

reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 25) and Stratz’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, all scheduled hearings are CANCELLED,

and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. This case is now closed.

s/Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: June 24, 2025 United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3