Payne v. Broadworth et al

Filing 62

OPINION & ORDER (1) Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's April 20, 2023 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 47 ) and (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 39 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (KSan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES U. PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 22-cv-12574
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

BROADWORTH et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION & ORDER
(1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S APRIL 20, 2023 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 47) AND (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Dkt. 39)
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman issued on April 20, 2023 (Dkt. 47). In the R&R, the
magistrate judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff James U. Payne’s motion for default
judgment (Dkt. 39).
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 Payne’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. 39).
SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2024
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

2