Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-358-KSF.
August 30, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge who, on August 10, 2010, issued a Recommended Disposition [DE 26] that the motion be denied.
No objections were filed to the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and recommendation, and the time for filing same has passed. Although this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), "[i]t 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." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, a party who fails to file objections to a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendation waives the right to appeal. See Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, having examined the record and having made a de novo determination, the Court is in agreement with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition [DE 26] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference; and
2. The Defendant's motion to dismiss [DE 6] is DENIED.
This August 30, 2010.