Williams v. CBC Innovis, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 10 and Dismissing Action Without Prejudice signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Grimes, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 17-CV-10591
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

CBC INNOVIS, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________/
ORDER
(1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2017 and (2)
DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Patti, issued on November 28, 2017. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4 and his failure to show cause.
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, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987)
(failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash,
328 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or
omission in a magistrate 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.”). However, 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 accepts the
recommendation.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

January 29, 2018

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served on the attorneys and parties of
record herein by electronic means or U.S. Mail on January 29, 2018.

s/Kim Grimes
Case Manager Supervisor, Acting in the
Absence of Karri Sandusky, Case Manager

2