ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [67] AND DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS [57, 58]

LAURIE J. MICHELSON, District Judge.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis' Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 67.) At the conclusion of her September 27, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Davis notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal." (ECF No. 67, PageID.753.) It is now October 18, 2018, and no objections have been filed.

The Court finds that the parties' failure to object is a procedural default, waiving review of the Magistrate Judge's findings by this Court. In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit established a rule of procedural default, holding that "a party shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal." And in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit's waiver-of-appellate-review rule rested on the assumption "that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving review even at the district court level." 474 U.S. at 149; see also Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) ("The Court is not obligated to review the portions of the report to which no objection was made." (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149-52)). The Court further held that this rule violates neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution.

The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and accepts her recommended disposition. It follows that this Court DENIES Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 57, 58); insofar as those motions seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b), they are DENIED; insofar as those motions seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12, they are DENIED AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED.