Griffin v. Heigler et al

Filing 23

ORDER(1) Accepting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated August 20, 2017 and (2) Dismissing Defendant Lisa Heigler without Prejudice.. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

NIA GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 16-CV-10071
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

LISA HEIGLER, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________/
ORDER
(1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED AUGUST 20, 2017 and (2)
DISMISSING DEFENDANT LISA HEIGLER WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Whalen, issued on August 20, 2017. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Defendant Lisa Heigler be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m), for failure of timely service.
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, Defendant Heigler is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2017
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 20, 2017.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager

2