Anagonye v. Mass Mutual Insurance Co.

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 20 Report and Recommendation re 13 Motion to Dismiss; and Staying Case Pending Arbitration, Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CLARE U. ANAGONYE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-11170
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

MASS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [20], DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [13] AND
STAYING CASE PENDING ARBITRATION
Before the Court is Executive Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s October 12, 2018,
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 20.) At the conclusion, Magistrate Judge Whalen 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. 23, PageID.537.) It is now November 7, 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 Defendant’s motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 13) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the case is stayed pending
arbitration.
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: November 9, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, November 9, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

2