Sands v. Brennan
Filing
43
ORDER (1) Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated November 29, 2017 (Dkt. 39 ) and, (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Cease and Desist Order (Dkt. 27 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL J. SANDS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 16-cv-12860
vs.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,
Defendant.
____________________
/
ORDER
(1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED NOVEMBER 29, 2017 (Dkt.
39)_AND, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
(Dkt. 27)
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, issued on November 29, 2017. In the R&R, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Michael J. Sands’s motion for a cease and desist
order against the United States Postal Service (Dkt. 27).
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. 39) and denies Plaintiff’s motion for a cease and desist order (Dkt. 27).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 27, 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 December 27, 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?