Opinion
22-10009
04-26-2022
MARK W. DOBRONSKI, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL NEIGHBORS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED MARCH 31, 2022 (Dkt. 28) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (Dkt. 16)
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Jonathan Grey, issued on March 31, 2022 (Dkt. 28). In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Mark Dobronski's motion to remand (Dkt. 16).
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 Dobronski's motion to remand.
SO ORDERED.