UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERVIN JOSEPH LAMIE, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-11101 Honorable Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

TODD M. MORGAN et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 19), GRANTING DEFENDANT MORGAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 5), AND GRANTING DEFENDANT LENAWEE COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN LIEU OF ANSWER (ECF NO. 6)

Plaintiff Ervin Joseph LaMie (“LaMie”), proceeding pro se, initiated this suit against the Honorable Todd M. Morgan (“Judge Morgan”) and the County of Lenawee (“the County”) in the State of Michigan Court of Claims alleging violations of

, 242,

, and “plaintiffs (sic) unalienable right of due process protected by the [Fifth] and [Seventh] Amendment (sic)” arising out of Judge Morgan’s actions while presiding over LaMie’s state court cases. ECF No. 1-2, PageID.9. Judge Morgan removed the case to this Court, See ECF No. 1, and he and the County both filed motions to dismiss which were fully briefed. ECF Nos. 5, Page 1 of 3 6, 13-18. This case was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for all pretrial matters pursuant to

(b). ECF No. 9.

On February 3, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R). ECF No. 19. The R&R recommends this Court grant defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, and failure to overcome Judge Morgan’s absolute judicial immunity.

The R&R further recommends that “to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint is based on state law…the Court may and should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in accordance with

.”

at PageID.360. Neither party filed an objection 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 for further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusion, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither

party objects to those findings. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers,

, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp.

Page 2 of 3 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the part 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 and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 19) and

GRANTS Judge Morgan and the County’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6). LaMie’s federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because the Court DECLINES to exercise supplement jurisdiction

over LaMie’s state law claims pursuant to

, those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This case is now closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: March 4, 2025 United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3