Daniel v. Goodyear Tire/CBSD
Filing
23
ORDER (1) Accepting in Part the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Dated August 8, 2016 (Dkt. 22 ), (2) Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12 ), (3) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 15 ), and (4) Granting Plaintiff 14 Days to File Second Amended Complaint. Amended Complaint due by 9/16/2016. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROCHELLE DANIEL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-11479
v.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
GOODYEAR TIRE/CBSD, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER (1) ACCEPTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED AUGUST 8, 2016 (Dkt. 22), (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 12), (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 15), AND
(4) GRANTING PLAINTIFF 14 DAYS TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge Stephanie D. Davis, issued on August 8, 2016 (Dkt. 22). In the R&R, the
magistrate judge recommends granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12), denying
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 15), and granting Plaintiff
30 days to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified by the Court in the
R&R.
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,
1
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 in part.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12), denies Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 15), and grants Plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge in the R&R.
Plaintiff shall file the second amended complaint on or before September 16, 2016. If Plaintiff
does not timely file a second amended complaint, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2016
Detroit, Michigan
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
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 September 2, 2016.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?