Shah v. NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's 53 Report and Recommendation and Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Parties' 43 and 46 Cross Motions for Review of Clerk's Order on Taxation Costs. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GIRISH SHAH,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.
09-CV-12709

vs.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
NXP SEMICONDUCTORS
USA, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR REVIEW OF
CLERK’S ORDER ON TAXATION OF COSTS
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, issued on March 6, 2013. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the parties’ cross-motions for review of clerk’s order on taxation of costs
(Dkts. 43, 46) be granted in part and denied in part. In sum, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that costs be taxed in favor of Defendant in the total amount of $2,664.63.
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, 1373-4 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure
to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d

98, 1078 (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.”). 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 adopts the recommendation.
Accordingly, the parties’ cross-motions for review of clerk’s order on taxation of costs
are granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, and Defendant’s costs are taxed in the total amount of $2,664.63.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2013
Flint, Michigan

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

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 25, 2013.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager

2