Sparks v. Hutchinson et al

Filing 39

ORDER (1) Accepting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge Dated January 4, 2017 (Dkt. 38 ); (2) Granting Defendant Hutchinson's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 14 ) and Defendant Aiken's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28 ); and (3) Denying Plaintiff's Motions to Amend the Complaint (Dkts. 23 , 24 ) as Moot. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDY SPARKS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-10752
v.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
CRAIG HUTCHINSON, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED JANUARY 4, 2017 (Dkt. 38); (2) GRANTING
DEFENDANT HUTCHINSON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 14)
AND DEFENDANT AIKEN’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 28); AND (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (Dkts. 23, 24) AS MOOT
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on January 4, 2017 (Dkt. 38). In the R&R, the
magistrate judge recommends: (i) granting Defendant Craig Hutchison’s motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 14) and dismissing the claims against Hutchinson without prejudice; (ii) granting
Defendant Subrina Aiken’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 28) and dismissing the claims against Aiken
with prejudice; and (iii) denying Plaintiff Andy Sparks, Jr.’s motions to amend his complaint
(Dkts. 23, 24) as moot.
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.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant Hutchison’s motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. 14) and Defendant Aiken’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 28). The claims against Hutchinson
are dismissed without prejudice, while the claims against Aiken are dismissed with prejudice.
The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint (Dkts. 23, 24) as moot. A
separate judgment will enter.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 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 January 24, 2017.
s/Karri Sandusky
Case Manager

2