Vincent Hegar v. RICHARD LUCAS, Officer

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 22a0154n.06
Case No. 21-1563
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT HEGAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD LUCAS, Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
Before: SILER, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
SILER, Circuit Judge. Vincent Hegar brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Richard
Lucas, a Corrections Officer at the prison where Hegar was an inmate. He alleged that Lucas
failed to follow the prison’s chain-of-custody procedures in the administration of his drug test. As
a result, Hegar was found guilty of substance abuse, and his parole conditions were changed.
Instead of being paroled directly to the community, as the parole board had previously decided,
Hegar was required to commence his parole in a residential substance-abuse treatment program at
the Detroit Reentry Center—a condition which Hegar maintained “was the equivalent of being
confined in prison.” Thus, Hegar argued that Lucas had violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 21-1563, Hegar v. Lucas
- 2 -
On April 19, 2021, a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the district court grant summary judgment in Lucas’s favor. The R&R
included a notice to the parties that a failure to file objections within fourteen days of being served
a copy of the R&R “constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” Since the parties were
served a copy of the R&R that same day, any objections were due by May 3, 2021. On May 4, the
district court observed that neither party had filed objections, and it adopted the R&R.
In our circuit, a failure to object to an R&R “results in a waiver of appeal on that issue as
long as the magistrate judge informs the parties of the potential waiver.” United States v.
Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019). Here, the magistrate judge put the parties on
notice of a potential waiver. Yet Hegar failed to object to the R&R. Thus, he waived his right to
appeal.
We have declined to apply the waiver rule in limited circumstances when doing so
promotes the “interests of justice.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); see, e.g., Souter v.
Jones, 395 F.3d 577, 585–86 (6th Cir. 2005). But Hegar contends only that the court should
exercise jurisdiction over his appeal because the district court resolved his case on the merits rather
than on the basis of waiver and because he believes he is likely to prevail in this appeal. These
reasons do not warrant our disregard of the waiver rule. We accordingly AFFIRM the district
court.

-- 2 of 2 --