Opinion
Case No. 14-cv-11252
12-16-2014
DWAYNE L. DYE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROSEVILLE et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #18) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #13)
On March 23, 2014, Plaintiff Dwayne L. Dye ("Dye") filed a pro se civil rights Complaint against Defendants the City of Roseville, Roseville Chief of Police James P. Berlin, and a Roseville police officer identified only as "Sargent Witherspoon" (collectively the "Defendants"). (See Complaint, ECF #1.) Dye's Complaint includes four counts: "Malicious and Selective Prosecution" (see id. at ¶¶35-39), "Intentional Spoliation of Evidence" (see id. at ¶¶40-46), "Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention" brought against Defendant City of Roseville only (see id. at ¶¶47-53), and "Violation of the Michigan Tort Claims Act" (see id. at ¶¶54-58.) In lieu of filing an Answer to Dye's Complaint, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Dye's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See ECF #13.)
On November 21, 2014, Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety due to Dye's failure to state any cognizable claims in his Complaint against the Defendants. (See ECF #18.) The R&R stated that the parties could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days. (See id. at 21-22, Pg. ID 220-221.) The parties were instructed that "[a]ny objection must recite precisely the provcision of this [R&R] to which it pertains." (Id. at 21, Pg. ID 220.)
Neither party has objected to the R&R. As the Magistrate Judge specifically informed the parties (see id.), failure to file objections to the 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). Likewise, the failure to object to the Magistrate Judge's R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has nevertheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's November 21, 2014, R&R (ECF #18) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the R&R, that Defendants' May 1, 2014 Motion to Dismiss (ECF #13) is GRANTED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 16, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 16, 2014, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113