United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
July 28, 2015
THEODORE VISNER, Plaintiff,
ISABELLA COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.
On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff Theodore Visner filed a complaint against Isabella County and various members of the Isabella County judiciary and staff. Visner alleged that Defendants "unlawfully trespassed upon the known and expected rights of Plaintiff who had a reasonable expectation to be free from such unreasonable search and seizures/ordered theft in the public setting of the public courthouse where the theft of Plaintiff's personal property occurred by the unlawful, unwritten order of the judge, Paul Chamberlain which was then unlawfully executed by threat of force through the bailiffs/accomplices/henchmen." Compl. ¶ 1. Visner alleged that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988 and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as Article I, § 10 to the Constitution of the United States. After filing the Complaint, no other action was taken in this case.
On June 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report recommending that Visner's Complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Judge Morris noted that there is no indication that Visner attempted to serve Defendants and that Visner did not respond to the May 15, 2015 show-cause order. Accordingly, Judge Morris recommended that Visner's Complaint be dismissed sua sponte for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Although Magistrate Judge Morris's report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 5) is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.