1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FRANK LEONARD BUTZ, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-12233 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

JERRY CLAYTON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #24), 

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF ## 10, 11, 

16), AND (3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff Frank Leonard Butz (“Butz”) filed a Complaint 

against two Defendants: Jerry Clayton (“Clayton”), the Washtenaw County 

Sherriff, and Securas Technologies (“Securas”). (See ECF #1.) Among other 

things, Butz alleges that while he was incarcerated at the Washtenaw County Jail, 

he was denied the ability to place phone calls to his family. (See id. at 3, Pg. ID 3.) 

Butz also claims that when he did attempt to make phone calls, his calls were 

interrupted by solicitations. (See id.) Finally, Butz says that his family was 

charged “an outrageous amount” for the phone calls he was able to place to them. 

(Id.) 

2:15-cv-12233-MFL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 05/25/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 193
2 

On September 11, 2015, Securas filed a motion to dismiss Butz’ Complaint 

or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement (the “Securas Motion”). (See 

ECF ## 10, 11.) Clayton moved to dismiss Butz’ Complaint on September 16, 

2015 (the “Clayton Motion”). (See ECF #16.) Butz filed a response to both the 

Securas Motion and Clayton Motion on September 30, 2015. (See ECF #18.) In 

his response, Butz asked the Court to appoint him counsel in this action. (See id. at 

2, Pg. ID 114.) 

On April 25, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and 

recommendation (the “R&R”) in which he recommended that: (1) the Court grant 

both the Securas Motion and the Clayton Motion; (2) dismiss the Complaint 

against both Defendants; and (3) deny Butz’ request for the appointment of counsel 

without prejudice. (See ECF #24.) 

At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge instructed the parties 

that they “may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but 

are required to file any objections within 14 days of service.” (Id. at 14, Pg. ID 

191.) The parties were also told that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections 

constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” (Id.) 

Butz has not filed any objections to the R&R. As the Magistrate Judge 

informed the parties, the failure to file an objection to a report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health 

2:15-cv-12233-MFL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 05/25/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 194
3 

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). Likewise, the failure to 

object releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has nevertheless reviewed 

the R&R and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (ECF #24) is 

ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for 

the reasons stated in the R&R, the Securas Motion (ECF ## 10, 11) and the 

Clayton Motion (ECF #16) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 

for the reasons stated in the R&R, Clayton’s request for the appointment of counsel 

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: May 25, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on May 25, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-12233-MFL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 05/25/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 195