Boyd v. City of Warren et al

Filing 92

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 90 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EKar)

Download PDF
Case 2:16-cv-12741-LJM-RSW ECF No. 92, PageID.2093 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES FRANCIS BOYD, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-12741 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen CITY OF WARREN, WARREN POLICE DEPARTMENT, WARREN CITY HALL, JERE GREEN, COLIN MCCABE, JEFFREY MASSERANG, JR., ROBERT HORLOCKER, and ROLAND BELL, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [90] Before the Court is Executive Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s January 19, 2021 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 90.) At the conclusion of his report, Magistrate Judge Whalen notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of service and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” (ECF No. 90, PageID.2089.) It is now February 16, 2021. As such, the time to file objections has expired. And no objections have been filed. 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- Case 2:16-cv-12741-LJM-RSW ECF No. 92, PageID.2094 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2 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 his recommended disposition. Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal (ECF No. 80) is DENIED. This case is ready for trial. As a result of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, however, the District has not yet resumed in-court proceedings. Once civil jury trials are resumed, and depending on where this case falls in line, the Court will schedule final pre-trial and trial dates. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 17, 2021 s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?