From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Citizens Bank v. Cinema Park L.L.C

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
May 13, 2010
CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2174 (N.D. Ohio May. 13, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2174.

May 13, 2010


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. (Docket #211) recommending that the Court grant the pending Motion for Default Judgment filed by Defendant Graves Lumber against Defendant, Cinema Park L.L.C. (Docket #207.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court enter Judgment in the form set forth in the Proposed Judgment Entry attached to Graves Lumber's Motion. (Docket #207-2.)

No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

The applicable district court standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to the report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) provides:

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

The text of Rule 72(b) addresses only the review of reports to which objections have been made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard of review for those reports to which no objections have been properly made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on a district court's review of unopposed reports by magistrate judges. In regard to subsection (b) of Rule 72, the advisory committee stated: "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." FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citation omitted).

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985): "It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo. Magistrate Judge Baughman properly recommended that the pending motion for default judgment be granted. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baughman (Docket # 211) is hereby ADOPTED. The Magistrate Judge will exercise consent jurisdiction over the remaining claims and parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2010


Summaries of

Citizens Bank v. Cinema Park L.L.C

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
May 13, 2010
CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2174 (N.D. Ohio May. 13, 2010)
Case details for

Citizens Bank v. Cinema Park L.L.C

Case Details

Full title:CITIZENS BANK, Plaintiff, v. CINEMA PARK L.L.C., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: May 13, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 1:08 CV 2174 (N.D. Ohio May. 13, 2010)