Jakubowski v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 39

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation 38 and Dismissing Complaint as Moot or, Alternatively, Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 25 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EKar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAWRENCE JOHN JAKUBOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-11323
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

DONALD HALDERER,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [38] AND
DISMISSING COMPLAINT AS MOOT OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [25]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s February 24, 2020, Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 38.) At the conclusion of her report, Magistrate Judge Stafford
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). (ECF No. 38, PageID.237.) She further informed the parties, “If a party fails to timely file
specific objections, any further appeal is waived. And only the specific objections to this report
and recommendation are preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived.” (Id. (citation
omitted).) It is now March 20, 2021. 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-of-

appellate-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 her recommended disposition. It follows that Plaintiff Lawrence John
Jakubowski’s complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the
alternative, Defendant Donald Haiderer’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 25) is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 22, 2021
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2