Travis Tillman v. Erich Kent et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TRAVIS TILLMAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-10084 Honorable Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris ERICH KENT et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 58) AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 53)

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) recommending that plaintiff Travis Tillman’s (“Tillman”) motion for default judgment as to defendant Erich Kent (“Kent”) (ECF No. 53) be denied without prejudice.

Neither party filed an objection to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired.1 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, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that The Court notes that Tillman has already filed his renewed motion for default judgment as to Kent. See ECF No. 59.

Page 1 of 2 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, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373–74 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 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. 53) and Tillman’s motion for default judgment as to Kent (ECF No. 53) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: November 20, 2025 United States District Judge Page 2 of 2