Carre v. Nutton et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUSAN R. CARRE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 25-cv-11628
v. 	Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
COLETTE NUTTON, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 75) AND (2) DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AS MOOT (ECF Nos. 29, 32, 43, 51, 57)
In July and August 2025, several Defendants in this action filed motions to
dismiss Plaintiff Susan R. Carre’s First Amended Complaint. (See Mots., ECF Nos.
29, 32, 43, 51, 57.) After Defendants filed those motions, Carre moved for leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint (see Mot., ECF No. 54), and the parties stipulated
to allow Carre to do so (see Order, ECF No. 66). Carre then filed that pleading (see
Sec. Am. Compl., ECF No. 71), and Defendants have now filed new motions to
dismiss directed at that pleading. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 73, 78, 79, 82, 88.)
On September 25, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny Defendants’
initially-filed motions to dismiss as moot based on the filing of the Second Amended
Case 2:25-cv-11628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 103, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Complaint (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 75.) At the conclusion of the R&R,
the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if any party wanted to file an objection
to the R&R, the party needed to do so within 14 days. (See id., PageID.1463-1464.)
No party has filed an objection to the R&R. 	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”). 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).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the filing of the Second
Amended Complaint moots Defendants’ motions to dismiss directed at the First
Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court will ADOPT the recommended disposition
of the R&R and DENY Defendants’ initially-filed motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 29,
32, 43, 51, 57) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
Dated: December 3, 2025 	UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-11628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 103, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

3
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 3, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
Case 2:25-cv-11628-MFL-EAS ECF No. 103, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3