UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

NATHANIEL WARD-EL, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10238 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

 Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis 

JAMES LUCKY, et al., 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 Plaintiff Nathaniel Ward-el, a prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action on January 21, 

2015. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants James Lucky, Lacy O’Connor, Willie Riley, Penny 

Landrum, and Mashawn Campbell, employees of the Cooper Street Correctional Facility (JCS), 

violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 by conspiring to retaliate against 

him for engaging in protected conduct under the First Amendment. ECF No. 1. Specifically, 

Ward-el alleged that after he expressed intent to notify authorities of staff corruption at the jail 

facility, Defendant Library Technician Lucky issued him a false Class II misconduct violation 

for being out of place on August 17, 2012. Ward-el claims that after he filed a grievance against 

Lucky on August 20, 2012 Defendants then conspired to transfer him in retaliation. Id. 

On March 23, 2015 Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 9. 

On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff Ward-el filed objections to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. ECF No. 18. He also filed a motion to dismiss Defendant Lacey O’Connor from the 

action. ECF No. 16. 

1:15-cv-10238-TLL-SDD Doc # 24 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 298
- 2 - 

On March 10, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis issued a report 

recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and Ward-el’s motion 

to dismiss be denied as moot. ECF No. 23. Judge Dawkins reasoned that Defendants had 

carried their burden of showing that Plaintiff Ward-el had failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). She therefore recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s 

complaint without prejudice. 

Although Magistrate Judge Dawkins’s report explicitly states that the parties to this 

action could 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. 23, is ADOPTED. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 9, is 

GRANTED. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Ward-el’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 17, is 

DENIED as moot. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Ward-el’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

It is further ORDERED that permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is 

DENIED. An appeal would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. 

§1915 (a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). 

1:15-cv-10238-TLL-SDD Doc # 24 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 299
- 3 - 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 30, 2016 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on March 30, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:15-cv-10238-TLL-SDD Doc # 24 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 300