UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LACY-ANN PIIPPO, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-10618 Honorable Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

ERIC BLUBAUGH et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 11), AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)

Plaintiff Lacy-Ann Piippo (“Piippo”), proceeding pro se, sued the Honorable Eric Blubaugh, Jill Sadler, and Douglas Mitchell, alleging violations of her constitutional rights arising out of a probate case in Chippewa County Michigan. ECF No. 1. This case was referred to the magistrate judge for all pretrial matters pursuant to

(b). ECF No. 7. On April 24, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. 11. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss Piippo’s complaint for failure to prosecute.

Piippo did not file 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 Page 1 of 3 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,

(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.”). Thus, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 11), and Piippo’s

complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and E.D. Mich. LR 42.1. This case is now closed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 3 s/Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: May 29, 2025 United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3