ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 166) AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION NUNC PRO TUNC Doc. 141 TO ADOPT AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 149) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS (Docs. 150, 152) AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. 153) AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 158)

AVERN COHN, District Judge.

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). The matter has been referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Following motion practice and reports and recommendation (MJRR) which were adopted by the Court, Paul Klee, Lee McRoberts and C. Condon, remain as defendants. They are employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Plaintiff claims that these defendants have violated his Eighth Amendment rights by placing him in danger from other inmates.

As the magistrate judge noted, there are several pending motions. On October 20, 2016, the magistrate judge issued a MJRR on some of the pending motions.1 The magistrate judge recommends the following:

Neither party has objected to the recommendations2 of the magistrate judge and the time for filing objections has passed.

II.

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. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

SO ORDERED.