UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD LEE WILSON, III,

Plaintiff, 

v.

LLOYD RAPELJE, VAL CHAPLIN,

O.T. WYNN, SUSAN McCULLEY,

SCOTT FREED, JANE HAWKIN,

JOHN TURNER, and R. NELSON,

Defendants.

______________________________/ 

Case Number: 09-13030

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 37)

AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 22)

AND

DISMISSING CASE

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, Harold

Wilson II, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, has sued several officials and

employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections claiming a violation of his

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process regarding a prison disciplinary hearing. 

Plaintiff says he was denied a fair and impartial hearing primarily because a confidential

informant’s anonymous statement was used against him without a finding by the

hearing officer that the statement was credible. After the hearing, Plaintiff was found

guilty of a major misconduct. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial

proceedings. 

2:09-cv-13030-AC-MAR Doc # 39 Filed 01/04/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 228
1

O.T. Wynn, the other named defendant, has not been served, or otherwise

appeared in the case, and the time for service has passed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

claims against him are DISMISSED. See E.D. Mich. LR 41.2.

2

Defendants Rapelje, Chaplin, McCauley, Freed, Hawkins, Turner and Nelson

(collectively “Defendants”)1 filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that (1)

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the defense of qualified immunity because: a) the

discipline imposed did not subject Plaintiff to a longer prison sentence requiring due

process protections, and b) the hearing did comply with the requirement of due process;

(2) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the personal involvement of Rapelje, Chaplin and

McCauley in any alleged due process violation; and (3) Plaintiff’s official capacity claims

are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The magistrate judge issued a report

and recommendation, recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted on the

grounds that the major misconduct finding against Plaintiff does not implicate federal

due process protections – rendering Defendants’ remaining arguments moot. 

II.

Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections

has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any

further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees

with the magistrate judge. 

2:09-cv-13030-AC-MAR Doc # 39 Filed 01/04/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 229
3

III.

Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED

as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

 S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 4, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Harold Lee Wilson,

II, 325150, Cooper Street Correctional Facility, 3100 Cooper Street, Jackson, MI 49201 and

the attorneys of record on this date, January 4, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-13030-AC-MAR Doc # 39 Filed 01/04/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 230