Roseman v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 18-13042. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190222b42
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING MOTIONS AS MOOT DAVID M. LAWSON , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the report issued on January 29, 2019 by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), recommending that the Court dismiss the parties' earlier filed dispositive motions as moot, because the magistrate judge recently issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Although the report stated that th
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING MOTIONS AS MOOT DAVID M. LAWSON , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the report issued on January 29, 2019 by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), recommending that the Court dismiss the parties' earlier filed dispositive motions as moot, because the magistrate judge recently issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Although the report stated that the..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING MOTIONS AS MOOT
DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the report issued on January 29, 2019 by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court dismiss the parties' earlier filed dispositive motions as moot, because the magistrate judge recently issued an order granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Although the report stated that the parties to this action could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties' failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n 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 matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 52) is ADOPTED, and the parties' pending dispositive motions (ECF No. 25, 26, 36, 48) are DISMISSED as moot, without prejudice to the parties' rights to seek further relief at an appropriate time.
Source: Leagle
