Prentice v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLENN PRENTICE,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 25-cv-10286

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

LISA BROWN,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING DISPOSITION PROPOSED IN REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 20) AND DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff Glenn Prentice, proceeding pro se, initiated this lawsuit against

Defendant Lisa Brown, who is the Oakland County Clerk, and up to as many as 100

Jane and John Does on January 30, 2025.1 (See Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants violated several federal laws including criminal statutes for

concealment, conspiracy, extortion, fraud and falsifying documents, grand theft,

racketeering, and more. (Id. at PageID.2-3 (citing statutes under Titles 5 and 18 of

the U.S. Code)). Plaintiff also includes civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act. (Id. at PageID.3). On February 3, 2025,

the Court referred all pretrial matters to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (See Order,

ECF No. 6).

On March 18, 2025, Defendant Lisa Brown—the only Defendant who has

received service of process—filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No.11). Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition on April 30,

2025. (ECF No. 18). Brown did not file a reply brief.

The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and the briefing on

Brown’s motion to dismiss, and he recommended that (1) all claims against the Doe

Defendants be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, (2) all claims against

Brown except the civil RICO claim be dismissed for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction, and (3) Brown’s motion be granted with respect to the civil RICO claim.

(See R & R, ECF No. 20.)

At the conclusion of the R & R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that

they had fourteen days to file objections. (See id., PageID.175-76.). Plaintiff

thereafter sought an extension to file objections until August 12, 2025 (see Request,

ECF No. 22), and the Court granted that request. (See Text Order dated July 30,

2025.)

Brown did not file objections to the R & R. Plaintiff likewise did not file

objections by the extended deadline. Instead, he filed a notice to the Court

purporting to “remove” this action to the United States Court of Federal Claim. (See

Notice, ECF No. 23.) There is no basis for Plaintiff’s purported

“removal.” Moreover, the parties’ failure to object to the 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”). 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, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

THAT:

1. All claims against Brown except the civil RICO claim are DISMISSED

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

2. The civil RICO claim against Brown is DISMISSED because it fails to

state a claim on which relief can be granted;

3. The claims against the Doe Defendants are DISMISSED for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

This is a final order that terminates and closes this civil action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 25, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on August 25, 2025, by electronic means and/or ordinary

mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan

Case Manager

(313) 234-5126