UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMUEL R. JONES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-12527

Honorable George Caram Steeh

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

WAYNE COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [R. 13]

Plaintiff Samuel R. Jones, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wayne County Jail 

and several Wayne County Jail and/or Sheriff’s Department officials. [R. 1]. 

After dismissing all but four defendants – Sergeant Bassam Karkaba1 and 

Deputies Kevin Moore, Richard Thorpe and Kozlowski – the Honorable 

George Caram Steeh referred the case to the undersigned to resolve all 

pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). [R. 6; R. 8]. 

Before the Court is Jones’s “Motion for Summary Judgment by Default 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58” and supplemental brief. [R. 13; R. 30]. This 

motion lacks merit.

 

1 Jones misidentified Karkaba as Sergeant Karbara. [R. 7].

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 33 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 89
2

In his motion, Jones states that defendants should be put in default 

for failing to respond to the Court’s November 23, 2015 order granting his 

motion to amend [R. 10] within 14 days. [R. 13; R. 30]. The language 

Jones cites is in the “Notice to the Parties Regarding Objections” section of 

the order, which merely explains that parties have 14 days to object to the 

order. [R. 10, PgID 32]. The order did not require defendants to respond. 

Moreover, the usual procedural rules for answering complaints do not 

apply in § 1983 prisoner actions. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1), a defendant may waive the right to 

reply to an action brought by a prisoner under § 1983, and such waiver 

does not constitute an admission of the allegations in the complaint. In 

such cases “[n]o relief shall be granted to the plaintiff unless a reply has 

been filed” by the defendant. § 1997e(g)(1). 

Because the Court never required defendants to respond to the 

November 23, 2015 order, and because defendants are not in default, the 

Court RECOMMENDS that Jones’s motion for summary judgment [R. 13] 

be DENIED.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: July 20, 2016

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 33 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 90
3

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

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. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 33 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 91
4

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 are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 20, 2016.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 33 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 92