Harp v. Hallett et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Anthony Harp,
Plaintiff,
v.
Victoria Hallett, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Case No. 19-cv-13789
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [62]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’ Report and
Recommendation recommending the Court dismiss the John Doe
Defendants (ECF No. 62), who are referred to in the complaint as
“Unknown Transportation officers.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.4.) The parties
were required to file specific written objections, if any, within fourteen
days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). Plaintiff
Anthony Harp filed objections. (ECF No. 64.) In his filing, Plaintiff objects
to the case being dismissed; however, he does not oppose the dismissal of
the John Doe Defendants. Plaintiff states that “the Doe defendants
should be dismissed.” (Id. at PageID.495.) He asks that the Court
Case 5:19-cv-13789-JEL-PTM ECF No. 93, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 2

2
“not . . . dismiss the case and dismiss the Doe Defendants.” (Id. at
PageID.497.) Thus, Plaintiff apparently does not object to the R&R’s
recommendation to dismiss the John Doe Defendants. The Court has
nevertheless carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and
concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly,
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 62) is ADOPTED; and
The John Doe Defendants are DISMISSED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
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 October 20, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
1 By failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties have
forfeited any further right of appeal. United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878
(6th Cir. 2019); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019).
Case 5:19-cv-13789-JEL-PTM ECF No. 93, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 2