Opinion
1:23-CV-432
09-29-2023
ALFRED A. JOHNSON, SR., Plaintiff, v. ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
Michael R. Barrett, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on August 20, 2023, (Doc. 8), as well as the supplemental R&R filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 1, 2023, (Doc. 14). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice to Plaintiff Alfred A. Johnson, Sr., that he could forfeit review or rights on appeal if he failed to file objections in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).No objections to either R&R have been filed, and the time to do so has expired.
Although Johnson did send a letter to the Court that could be construed as expressing an intention to object, he failed to actually do so in the ample time afforded to him.
Accordingly, the R&R, (Doc. 8), and supplemental R&R, (Doc. 14), are hereby Accepted and Adopted in full. Consistent with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge:
I. Johnson's motion to supplement, (Doc. 13), is Granted in part and Denied in part;
i. The motion is Granted to the extent that Johnson seeks to amend his complaint with related claims;
ii. The motion is Denied to the extent that Johnson presents evidence or caselaw ostensibly in support of his position or seeks to renew or supplement his requests for injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus;
II. Johnson's claims concerning the loss of personal property and related issues are Dismissed for failure to state a claim;
III. Johnson's unrelated claims against additional defendants and unrelated sexual harassment claims are Severed and Dismissed without prejudice; and
IV. Johnson's motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. 6), and motion for a writ of mandamus, (Doc. 7), are Denied as moot.
Further, the Court Certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore Denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.