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)

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