Capital for Merchants, L.L.C. v. Wealth Creating Investments

Filing 54

ORDER ACCEPTING 51 Report and Recommendation re 46 Motion to Amend. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (WBar)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CAPITAL FOR MERCHANTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:16-cv-13610-LJM-DRG Honorable Laurie J. Michelson Magistrate Judge David R. Grand WEALTH CREATING INVESTMENTS, Defendant, and BCG EQUITIES, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [51] AND DENYING INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND [46] Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 51.) At the conclusion of his March 13, 2019 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Grand 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.” (ECF No. 51, PageID.503–504.) Today is April 30, 2019. 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 his recommended disposition. It follows that this Court DENIES BCG Equities’ motion to amend (ECF No. 46). SO ORDERED. s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: April 30, 2019 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 30, 2019, using the Electronic Court Filing system and/or first-class U.S. mail. s/William Barkholz 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?