Edkins v. Shartle et al
Filing
22
ORDER Adopting 20 Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation Dated September 17, 2013; Striking Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 13 , Dismissing Without Prejudice Defendants United States of America, Eric Holder, J.T. Shartle, Charles Samuels, Jason Hayes and Charles Howard, and Directing the Clerk's Office to File Plaintiff's Amended Complaint D.E. 13 as a New Case. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (PMil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES EDKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 13-CV-11364
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
RICHARD HIGHAM, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________/
ORDER
(1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 20) DATED SEPTEMBER 17,
2013, (2) STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. 13), (3)
DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, ERIC HOLDER, J.T. SHARTLE, CHARLES SAMUELS, JASON HAYES,
and CHARLES HOWARD, and (4) DIRECTING THE CLERK’S OFFICE TO FILE
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. 13) AS A NEW CASE
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon, issued on September 17, 2013. (Dkt. 20.) In the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends (i) that Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 13) be stricken, (ii)
that Defendants United States of America, Eric Holder, J.T. Shartle, Charles Samuels, Jason
Hayes, and Charles Howard be dismissed without prejudice, and (iii) that the Clerk’s Office be
directed to file Plaintiff’s amended complaint as a new case. See R&R.
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 Court strikes Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 13), dismisses
without prejudice Defendants United States of America, Eric Holder, J.T. Shartle, Charles
Samuels, Jason Hayes, and Charles Howard, and directs the Clerk’s Office to file the amended
complaint (Dkt. 13) as a new case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 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 October 21, 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?