Chaney v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER Accepting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated June 1, 2016 (Dkt. 12 ) and Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PERRY CHANEY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-10334
Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith

vs.
NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL,
INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED JUNE 1, 2016 (Dkt. 12) AND
DISMISSING CASE
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub, issued on June 1, 2016 (Dkt. 12). In the R&R, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that this matter be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute pursuant to
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2.
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

1

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.”).
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, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed
with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 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 June 22, 2016.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager

2