Manning v. United States of America
ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 12 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (KJac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 15-cv-12355
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis’ Report and
Recommendation. (R. 19.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of
service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan
Local Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any
further right of appeal.” (R. 19, PID 132.) The time to file objections has expired and no
objections have been filed.1
The Court finds that the parties’ failure to object is a procedural default, waiving review
of the Magistrate Judge’s findings by this Court. In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–
50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party
shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal.” And in Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-
Plaintiff filed a response stating that she “accepts” the Report and Recommendation. (R.
20.) “Based on this, it is clear plaintiff agrees with, rather than objects to, the Report and
Recommendation.” Tatum v. Upton, No. 1:08cv616, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97505, at *1 n.1
(E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2008).
appellate-review rule rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a
procedural default waiving review even at the district court level.” 474 U.S. at 149; see also
Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr.
16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the portions of the report to which no objection
was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)). The Court further held that this rule violates
neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution.
The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and accepts her recommended disposition. It follows that Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (R. 12) is GRANTED. As this order resolves this litigation, a separate judgment will
Dated: March 6, 2017
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
U.S. 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 March 6, 2017.
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?