Martin v. Kazulkina et al

Filing 144

ORDER (1) Accepting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Dated February 21, 2017 (Dkt. 143 ), (2) Granting Defendant Kazulkina's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 103 ), (3) Granting Defendant Makin's Motion for Summa ry Judgment (Dkt. 109 ), (4) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 112 ),(5) Construing Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. 127 ) as a Response, and (6)Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIC MARTIN,
Plaintiff
Case No. 12-cv-14286
v.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
SOFIA KAZULKINA, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2017 (Dkt. 143), (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANT KAZULKINA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 103), (3)
GRANTING DEFENDANT MAKIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt.
109), (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 112),
(5) CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION” (Dkt. 127) AS A RESPONSE, AND (6)
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate
Judge Patricia T. Morris, issued on February 21, 2017 (Dkt. 143). In the R&R, the magistrate
judge recommends granting Defendant Sofia Kazulkina’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
103), granting Defendant Jerry Makin’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 109), denying
Plaintiff Eric Martin’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 112), construing Plaintiff’s “motion
to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment” (Dkt. 127) as a response, and dismissing
the complaint with prejudice.
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
1

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 accepts the

recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant Kazulkina’s motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. 103), grants Defendant Makin’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 109), denies
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 112), construes Plaintiff’s “motion” (Dkt. 127) as
a response, and dismisses the complaint with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2017
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

2

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 March 13, 2017.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager

3