Smith v. Wellpath Healthcare et al
Filing
25
OPINION & ORDER (1) Accepting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated November 3, 2023 (Dkt. 23 ), (2) Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and (3) Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18 ) as Moot. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (KSan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AIRICK TRAMMEL SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 23-cv-10075
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
WELLPATH HEALTHCARE et al.,
Defendants.
____________________/
OPINION & ORDER
(1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2023 (Dkt. 23),
(2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b),
AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 18) AS MOOT
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued on November 2, 2023 (Dkt. 23). In the R&R, the
magistrate judge recommends that the Court (i) dismiss Plaintiff Airick Trammel Smith’s
complaint (Dkt. 1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and (ii) deny as moot the motion
to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment filed by Defendants Gary Miniard, Russell
Scabbo, Jeanna Bitler, Maria Davis, and Magen Oaks.
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 (i) dismisses Smith’s complaint, and (ii) denies as moot
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 18).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 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?