Price v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 71

OPINION and ORDER (1) Accepting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 60 ) and (2) Denying Defendant Rachell Long's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 40 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (MNee)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ROBERT PRICE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 22-cv-10219 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants. ____________________/ OPINION & ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 60) AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT RACHELL LONG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 40) This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford, issued on 5/30/24 (Dkt. 60). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Rachell Long (Dkt. 40). 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, the Court denies Long’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 40). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 9, 2024 Detroit, Michigan s/Mark A. Goldsmith MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge 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?