UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

RAVON L. JETER SR.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:19-cv-623 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Litkovitz BRYAN LAWLESS,

Defendant.

ORDER This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s June 4, 2021, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 49). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court GRANT Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 41). The R&R advised both parties that failing to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R could result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See Doc. 49, #297); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais,

(6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R & R … is forfeiture”);

(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the parties here needed to object by June 18, 2021. The time for filing objections has long since passed, and no party has objected. While that could be the end of the matter, there is perhaps one wrinkle. The advisory committee notes on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), i.e., the Rule governing objections to Magistrate Judges’ R&Rs, suggest that—even when neither party has filed an objection—the Court still must “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Some courts

have taken that advice at face value, reviewing R&Rs for clear error, even absent an objection. See, e.g., Mavrakis v. Warden, No. 5:17 CV 2398,

, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2018) (reviewing for clear error absent an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R); Mason v. Comm’r. Soc. Sec., No. 1:10 CV 2456,

, at *1 (N.D. Ohio July 22, 2011) (same); Malone v. Nike, No. 2:18-cv-02505- TLP-cgc,

, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. July 20, 2020) (same). Other courts, however, including this one, have adopted a Magistrate Judge’s R&R without

expressly invoking the clear error standard. See, e.g., Hutchinson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., No. 1:18-cv-761,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 2020) (adopting the R&R, without mentioning clear error review, because “the time period for objection ha[d] run, and no party ha[d] objected”); McDonald v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., No. 2:14-cv- 1610,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2016) (same); Davidson v. Warden, No. 2:14-cv-115,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2015) (same); Hayes v.

Warden Noble Corr. Inst., No. 2:16-cv-248,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2017) (same). The Court need not get to the bottom of that issue here, however, as the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned R&R and determined that it does not contain anything approaching a “clear error on [its] face.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (advisory committee notes). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49). The Court thus GRANTS Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 41). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. SO ORDERED.

August 23, 2021 : DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE