True Fitness, LLC et al v. Quantum Community Development Corporation et al

Filing 27

ORDER(1) Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated August 24, 2017 (Dkt. 26 ), and (2) Dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. 5 ) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRELL THOMAS, Plaintiff, Case No. 16-cv-11954 vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH QUANTUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ____________________ / ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED AUGUST 24, 2017 (Dkt. 26), AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 5) PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(b) This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on August 24, 2017 (Dkt. 26). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 5). 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, 1373-4 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 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 1 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 adopts the recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation contained in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. 26) and dismisses Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 5) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 26, 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 26, 2017. 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?