Broskey v. Gidley et al

Filing 43

ORDER ACCEPTING the Magistrate Judge's Jurisdiction 41 and GRANTING Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 20 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (KJac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SONNY BROSKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-13572
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis

LORI GIDLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION [41]
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [20]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis’ Report and
Recommendation. (R. 41.) At the conclusion of her August 17, 2017 Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Davis notified the parties that they were required to file any
objections within 14 days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and
Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” (R. 41, PID 377.) Because service on
Plaintiff was via mail, Plaintiff was given three extra days to object. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). And
because the 17th day fell on a Sunday, and the next day (September 4, 2017) was a legal holiday,
the Court ordered Plaintiff to file objections by September 5, 2017. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). It
is now September 13, 2017. 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-ofappellate-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 her recommended disposition. It follows that this Court GRANTS
Lori Gidley, Ivan Scott, Megan Inman (a/k/a Plowman), David Paul, Joshua Davidson, Lyle
Gillespie, Brian Zinn, and Ciara Burk’s motion for summary judgment (R. 20).
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 13, 2017

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 13, 2017.
s/Keisha Jackson
Case Manager

2