# Moore v. Brown

> District Court, E.D. Michigan · February 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797288

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Michigan
- **Decided:** February 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797288

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that 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”
- explaining that 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”

## Opinion text

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

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-11298
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
CHRYSTAL BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 40), (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT
BROWN’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 31), AND (3) DISMISSING
UNSERVED DEFENDANT DENNIS REYNOLDS

Plaintiff Charles Moore is a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). On May 31, 2023, Moore filed this pro
se civil-rights action against several Defendants who work for the MDOC. (See
Compl., ECF No. 1.) Moore says, among other things, that the Defendants violated
his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, his Eighth Amendment right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment, and his rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act when the Defendants failed to provide him
appropriate medical care and/or denied grievances that he had filed related to his
medical care.
Only two Defendants remain in this action: Chrystal Brown and Dennis
Reynolds. Moore has never served Reynolds with the Complaint. (See Unexecuted

Summons, ECF No. 39.) Brown was served, and she has now filed a motion to
dismiss. (See Mot., ECF No. 31.) That motion was referred to the assigned
Magistrate Judge. (See Order, ECF No. 11.) On January 13, 2025, the Magistrate

Judge issued a report and recommendation in which she recommended that the Court
(1) grant Brown’s motion and dismiss Moore’s claims against her and (2) sua sponte
dismiss Moore’s claims against Reynolds for failure to prosecute those claims (the
“R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 40.) 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. (See id.,
PageID.239-240.)

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). See also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, (6th Cir. 1987)

(explaining that 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).

Accordingly, because Moore has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition
described in the R&R is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1) Brown’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED, and Moore’s
claims against Brown are DISMISSED;
(2) Brown’s claims against Reynolds are DISMISSED for failure to

prosecute; and
(3) Because all Defendants have now been dismissed, the Court will close this
action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 10, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 10, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797288. Public record. Not legal advice.