From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hak v. Prisoner Health Servs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 29, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-CV-10879 (E.D. Mich. May. 29, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-CV-10879

05-29-2013

ALI HAK, Plaintiff, v. PRISONER HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants.


HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH


ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED MAY 7,

2013 (DKT. 28) and DISMISSING DEFENDANT STEVENS SUA SPONTE

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder, issued on May 7, 2013. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends the sua sponte dismissal of Defendant Rick Stevens.

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, 1078 (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."). 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 adopts the recommendation.

Accordingly, the claims against Defendant Rick Stevens are dismissed.

SO ORDERED. Dated: May 29, 2013

Flint, Michigan

______________________

MARK A. GOLDSMITH

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 29, 2013.

______________________

DEBORAH J. GOLTZ

Case Manager


Summaries of

Hak v. Prisoner Health Servs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
May 29, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-CV-10879 (E.D. Mich. May. 29, 2013)
Case details for

Hak v. Prisoner Health Servs.

Case Details

Full title:ALI HAK, Plaintiff, v. PRISONER HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: May 29, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-CV-10879 (E.D. Mich. May. 29, 2013)