From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Capital for Merchs., L.L.C. v. Wealth Creating Invs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 30, 2019
Case No. 2:16-cv-13610-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2019)

Opinion

Case No. 2:16-cv-13610-LJM-DRG

04-30-2019

CAPITAL FOR MERCHANTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. WEALTH CREATING INVESTMENTS, Defendant, and BCG EQUITIES, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff.



Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [51] AND DENYING INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND [46]

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 51.) At the conclusion of his March 13, 2019 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Grand 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. 51, PageID.503-504.) Today is April 30, 2019. As such, the time to file objections has expired. 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 his recommended disposition. It follows that this Court DENIES BCG Equities' motion to amend (ECF No. 46).

SO ORDERED.

s/Laurie J. Michelson

LAURIE J. MICHELSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: April 30, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 30, 2019, using the Electronic Court Filing system and/or first-class U.S. mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager


Summaries of

Capital for Merchs., L.L.C. v. Wealth Creating Invs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Apr 30, 2019
Case No. 2:16-cv-13610-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2019)
Case details for

Capital for Merchs., L.L.C. v. Wealth Creating Invs.

Case Details

Full title:CAPITAL FOR MERCHANTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. WEALTH CREATING INVESTMENTS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 30, 2019

Citations

Case No. 2:16-cv-13610-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2019)