NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge.
This matter came before the Court on the magistrate judge's July 10, 2014 report and recommendation on Defendant Sumner's motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. 34.) The magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff had not filed a response to the motion for partial summary judgment, despite ordering Plaintiff to do so on May 6, 2014. (Dkt. 33.) The magistrate judge considered matters outside of the pleadings, so she considered the entire case on a summary judgment standard. She recommended granting Defendant's motion for partial dismissal on the official capacity and mental/emotional damages claims and motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. She further recommended granting summary judgment for Defendant on all the case's claims because Plaintiff could not establish a genuine issue of material fact on any of the claims.
In addition to not filing a response to the motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. "[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge's report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter." Hall v. Rawal, 09-10933, 2012 WL 3639070, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citation omitted). The Court nevertheless agrees with the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Being fully advised in the premises, having read the pleadings, and for the reasons set forth above, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge's July 10, 2014 report and recommendation. (Dkt. 34.) The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (dkt. 31) and grants summary judgment to Defendant in the case's entirety.
So ordered.