UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL PAPPAS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CV-14459 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

OAKLAND COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING OCTOBER 15, 2009 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (# 34)

GRANTING IN PART THE OAKLAND COUNTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 24), GRANTING IN PART THE HENRY FORD

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 25),

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE, AND

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ON DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)

Plaintiff Michael Pappas filed a pro se complaint on October 20, 2008 against

Oakland County, the Oakland County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Deputies Davis, Tucker,

and Hoisington, Sheriff Sergeants Jennings and Clark, and Nurses Gullett and Tom

("Oakland County defendants"), and Henry Ford Hospital and Nurse Concord ("Henry Ford

defendants") alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of denial of substantive due

process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and denial of his rights to petition the government for

the redress of grievances and to the free exercise of religion in violation of the First

Amendment. Pappas also alleges state law claims of gross negligence, negligence, and

2:08-cv-14459-GCS-VMM Doc # 35 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 404
1

 As succinctly stated by Magistrate Judge Morgan: "Plaintiff's complaint is premised

on his allegations that Oakland County Sheriff's deputies learned from Henry Ford Hospital

employees that Plaintiff was in the hospital, and had been admitted to the psychiatric ward.

Plaintiff alleges that the hospital employees improperly disclosed health information to the

Sheriff's Department, including falsely telling Deputy Davis that Plaintiff was suicidal and/or

homicidal. Plaintiff also alleges that he was improperly removed from work release, and

incorrectly put into the K-Pod unit [housing inmates who are suicidal, mentally ill, or have

a substance abuse problem], without medical evaluation. Further, Plaintiff alleges that he

did not have access to religious counseling during his stay in K-Pod." October 15, 2009

Report and Recommendation, at 4. 

2

invasion of privacy.

The Oakland County defendants moved for summary judgment on July 17, 2009.

The Henry Ford defendants moved for summary judgment on July 20, 2009. The motions

were referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan. Counsel filed an appearance on behalf

of plaintiff Pappas on August 6, 2009, and thereafter filed responses to the motions.

Magistrate Judge Morgan issued an October 15, 2009 Report and Recommendation1

recommending that the motions for summary judgment be granted on the merits as to

Pappas' federal claims, and that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Pappas' state law claims. 

"A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of [a]

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Objections must be filed within 10 days after service of a Report and

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge." Id. A party's failure to object waives further judicial review. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149-155 (1985); Thomas v. Halter, 131 F.Supp.2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001);

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Pappas has not filed timely objections, and has thus waived further

2:08-cv-14459-GCS-VMM Doc # 35 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 405
3

judicial review. Id. Accordingly, and upon a thorough review of the Report and

Recommendation,

The court hereby ACCEPTS the October 15, 2009 Report and Recommendation as

its own. The Oakland County defendants' and Henry Ford defendants' motions for

summary judgment are hereby GRANTED, IN PART, to the extent that plaintiff's federal

claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice in their entirety. Plaintiff's state law claims

of gross negligence, negligence, and invasion of privacy are hereby DISMISSED, without

prejudice, with the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2009

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

November 5, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:08-cv-14459-GCS-VMM Doc # 35 Filed 11/05/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 406