Smith v Haiderer

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ASHTON SMITH,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:23-cv-11509
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
v.
Mag. Judge David R. Grand
DONALD HAIDERER,
SUSAN MCCAULEY,
and JANE DOE,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 100) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION OF JUDICIAL NOTICE, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 90)
Pro 	se 	Plaintiff Ashton 	Smith 	(“Smith”), 	an 	inmate 	in 	the 	Michigan
Department of Corrections, filed this prisoner civil rights action, under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging he was deprived of proper
medical treatment for his serious visual impairment. 	See generally ECF No. 1.1
Currently 	pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Smith’s 	Motion 	for 	Judicial 	Notice,
1 This matter was originally assigned to the Honorable Stephen J. Murphy but reassigned to the
undersigned on April 2, 2024. 	On April 4, 2024, this Court referred all pretrial matters to
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. ECF No. 33.
Case 2:23-cv-11509-BRM-DRG ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Preliminary Injunction and Appointment of Counsel, filed on March 20, 2025. ECF
No. 90.
On 	September 30, 2025, 	in 	a 	Report and 	Recommendation 	(“R&R”),
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand recommended that the Court deny the pending
motion,
as Smith’s request for injunctive relief lacks merit and
should be denied. And, since Smith claims to need an
attorney only to combat against future retaliatory transfers
and denied medical care (ECF No. 90, PageID.1824), that
request, too, lacks merit and should be denied.
ECF No. 100, PageID.2064. At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised
the parties that to seek review of his recommendation, they had to file specific
objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R. Id. at PageID.2064-
2065.
As of the date of this order, October 28, 2025—28 days since the Magistrate
Judge filed the R&R—neither party has filed objections to the R&R or contacted the
Court to ask for more time to file objections. 	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, 957-58 (6th
Cir. 1987) (explaining that a party’s failure to timely object to a report and
recommendation allows a court to accept the recommendation “without expressing
any views on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”). Similarly, failure to object
Case 2:23-cv-11509-BRM-DRG ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 3

3
to an R&R forfeits any further right to appeal. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520,
530 (6th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that a party forfeits their right to appeal by failing
to timely file objections to an R&R).
Accordingly, because neither party objected to the R&R (ECF No. 100), IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of
Smith’s Motion is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Smith’s Motion for Judicial Notice,
Preliminary Injunction and Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 90) is DENIED.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2025 	/s/Brandy R. McMillion
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
United States District Judge
2 The Court notes that on October 5, 2025, attorney Andrew Sullivan filed an appearance on behalf
of Smith. ECF No. 101. Therefore, the request to appoint counsel is denied as moot.
Case 2:23-cv-11509-BRM-DRG ECF No. 102, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 3