Moralez v. Moore et al

Filing 134

ORDER Accepting the 133 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendant's 89 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (TMcg)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ABELARDO MORALEZ, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 17-10567 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION, Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [133], GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [89] Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s August 9, 2018, Report and Recommendation. (R. 133.) The Report recommends granting the remaining motion to dismiss in this case. (R. 89.) At the Report’s conclusion, Magistrate Judge Patti notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen 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. 133, PageID.1031–1032.) It is now August 29, 2018. As such, the time to file objections has expired. 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 the Michigan Liquor Control Commission’s motion to dismiss (R. 89) is GRANTED. As this resolves all remaining issues, the case will be dismissed. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2018 s/Laurie J. Michelson U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on August 30, 2018. + s/Teresa McGovern Case Manager Generalist 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?