Wicker v. Armada Corp. of Nevada

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Wicker v. Armada Corp. of Nevada

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAN WICKER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 18-13046 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson v. Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

ARMADA CORP. OF NEVADA,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [12] GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [6] Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 12.) At the conclusion of her July 10, 2019 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Majzoub notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” (ECF No. 12, PageID.47.) No objections have been filed. As it is now July 30, 2019, the time to file objections has expired. The Court finds that the parties’ failure to object is a procedural default, waiving review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings by this Court. In United States v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947

, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal.” And in Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 144

(1985), the Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of- appellate-review rule rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving review even at the district court level.”

474 U.S. at 149

; see also Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990,

2012 WL 1278044

, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the portions of the report to which no objection was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)). The Court further held that this rule violates neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution. The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and accepts her recommended disposition. It follows that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: July 30, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, July 30, 2019, using the Electronic Court Filing system and/or first-class U.S. mail.

s/William Barkholz Case Manager

Reference

Status
Unknown