Blackwell v. Chisholm

Full title: CHARLES LAMAR BLACKWELL, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN CHISHOLM et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: May 7, 2024

23-cv-13015 (E.D. Mich. May. 7, 2024)

Opinion

23-cv-13015

05-07-2024

CHARLES LAMAR BLACKWELL, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN CHISHOLM et al., Defendants.

MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge.

OPINION & ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S APRIL 10, 2024 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 29) AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT (DKT. 14)

MARK A. GOLDSMITH, United States District Judge.

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman issued on April 10, 2024 (Dkt. 29). In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court deny Defendants Steven Chisholm, David Jones, and the City of Inkster's motion to dismiss as moot (Dkt. 14).

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, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 108 (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.”). However, 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 accepts the recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot (Dkt. 14).

SO ORDERED.