ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 72) AND GRANTING HARESH PANDYA'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 46) AND GRANTING JEFFREY STIEVE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 54)

AVERN COHN, District Judge.

I.

This is a pro se prisoner civil rights case. Plaintiff is a former inmate of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC).1 He asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants claiming a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights due to inadequate medical care for the treatment of a back condition. The matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 24).

Plaintiff initially named eleven (11) defendants. Following motion practice, the defendants are: Joshua Buskirk, Harriet Squier, Haresh Pandya, Frances Hinsley, Jeffrey Stieve, Sharp and Jacob.2

Pandya filed a second motion for summary judgment3 and Stieve filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 46, 54). On February 13, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that both motions be granted. (Doc. 72).

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's analysis and recommendations. As the magistrate judge fully explained, plaintiff has not made out a viable Eighth Amendment claim against either Pandya or Stieve.

III.

Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Pandya's second motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Stieve's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.