Wilson v. Rouleau et al
Filing
44
ORDER Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's 42 Report and Recommendation Dated January 23, 2013 and Granting Defendant Ruth C. Rouleau's 32 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RYAN A. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
11-CV-12261
vs.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
RUTH C. ROULEAU, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED JANUARY 23, 2013 and (2)
GRANTING DEFENDANT RUTH C. ROULEAU’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R)
of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, issued on January 23, 2013 (Dkt. 42). In the R&R,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Rouleau’s motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. 32) be granted.
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, Defendant Rouleau’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 32) is
granted. The last remaining Defendant in this case is Defendant Hines.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 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 February 11,
2013.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager
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?