ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #25) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #19)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff Shawn R. Van Heck ("Van Heck") alleges that in September 2015, Defendants Village of Romeo, the Romeo Police Department, and a Romeo police officer (collectively, "Defendants") violated his constitutional rights when he was arrested and prosecuted for driving with a suspended driver's license. (See Compl., ECF #1.) On April 21, 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss Van Heck's Complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (the "Motions to Dismiss"). (See ECF #19.)

On December 13, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Van Heck's Complaint (the "R&R"). (See ECF #25.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed Van Heck that if he wanted to seek review of her recommendation, he needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at 7-8, Pg. ID 191-92.)

Van Heck has not filed an objection to the R&R. As the Magistrate Judge specifically warned him in the R&R (see id.), his failure to file an objection waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Accordingly, because Van Heck has not filed an objection to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF #25) is GRANTED and the Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED.