Ostrander v. Gilley et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEONARD DORANCE
OSTRANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM GILLEY,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-10768
Honorable Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF NO. 73)
Plaintiff Leonard Dorance Ostrander, a pro se parolee of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 in April 2023.
In July 2024, the Honorable Matthew F. Leitman dismissed
Ostrander’s claims and closed the case for failure to prosecute because
Ostrander failed to update his address. ECF No. 39; ECF No. 40. But in
August 2024, Ostrander updated his address and filed several motions.
ECF No. 41; ECF No. 42; ECF No. 45; ECF No. 50. Judge Leitman
reopened the case, set aside the judgment, and ordered Ostrander to file
Case 2:23-cv-10768-MFL-EAS ECF No. 77, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 4

2
an amended complaint. ECF No. 51, PageID.311-312. Judge Leitman
then referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 52.
Ostrander’s amended complaint asserts just one claim—that
Defendant Adam Gilley used excessive force during an arrest in February
2022. ECF No. 56. Gilley moves for summary judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56, asserting that he is entitled to qualified
immunity. ECF No. 73. Ostrander filed no response to the motion, even
after the Court ordered him to do so. ECF No. 74. And Ostrander once
again failed to update his address, so this Court ordered him to show cause
why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No.
76. Ostrander failed to respond to the show cause order.
When a plaintiff fails to respond or otherwise oppose a defendant’s
motion, the Court may consider the plaintiff to have waived opposition to
the motion. 	Humphrey v. U.S. Att’y Gen.’s Office, 279 F. App’x 328, 331
(6th Cir. 2008). And “[o]nce the qualified immunity defense is raised, the
burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the officials are not entitled to
qualified immunity.” 	Silberstein v. City of Dayton, 440 F.3d 306, 311 (6th
Cir. 2006). Ostrander has not met that burden here as he did not respond
to the motion, even after being ordered to do so.
Case 2:23-cv-10768-MFL-EAS ECF No. 77, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that Gilley’s motion be GRANTED
and that Ostrander’s claims against Gilley be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
Dated: October 24, 2025 	United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this report and recommendation,
any party may serve and file specific written objections to this Court’s
findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). If a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal
is waived. 	Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). 	And
only the specific objections to this report and recommendation are
preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived. 	Willis v. Secretary of
HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).
Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,”
etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this report and
recommendation to which it pertains. Within 14 days after service of
objections, any non-objecting party must file a response to the
objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in the
Case 2:23-cv-10768-MFL-EAS ECF No. 77, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 4

4
same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to
Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in
length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page
limitation. If the Court determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule
without awaiting the response.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on October 24, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:23-cv-10768-MFL-EAS ECF No. 77, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 4 of 4