Claybron v. Deangelo ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOVAN CLAYBRON, Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-11953 vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH JODI DEANGELO, et al., Defendants. ____________________/ ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 39) AND (2) DISMISSING DEFENDANT OFFICER MECAJ This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Kimberly Altman, issued on August 25, 2022 (Dkt. 39). The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant named as “Officer Mecaj” be dismissed from this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) due to Plaintiff Jovan Claybron’s inability to effect service on Mecaj. See R&R at 1–2, 4. The parties have not filed objections 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 to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, 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, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts 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. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and accepts the recommendation. Accordingly, the Court accepts the recommendation contained in the R&R (Dkt. 39). Mecaj is dismissed under Rule 4(m) for lack of service. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 5, 2022 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge