Filed: Apr. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 10) DATED JANUARY 30, 2014, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 5), AND (3) DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder, issued on January 30, 2014 (Dkt. 10). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's motion to dis
Summary: ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 10) DATED JANUARY 30, 2014, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 5), AND (3) DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder, issued on January 30, 2014 (Dkt. 10). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's motion to dism..
More
ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 10) DATED JANUARY 30, 2014, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 5), AND (3) DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder, issued on January 30, 2014 (Dkt. 10). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) be granted and the case be dismissed.
The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of the right to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-4 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R "waived subsequent review of the matter"); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 1078 (2d Cir. 2003) ("As a rule, a party's failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial review of the point."); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F.Supp.2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ("As to the parts of the report and recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any standard."). There is some authority that a district court is required to review the R&R for clear error, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."). Therefore, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) and dismisses the case with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
