UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES BLACK, 775188, 

 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 

 14-CV-13581 

vs. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

MICHAEL BOUCHARD, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER 

ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE DATED NOVEMBER 7, 2014 (Dkt. 14) 

and DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PETITION FOR 

EMERGENCY INTERVENTION (Dkt. 13) 

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) 

of Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on November 7, 2014 (Dkt. 14). In the R&R, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s petition for emergency 

intervention (Dkt. 13), which Plaintiff filed seeking medical treatment from the medical staff 

at the Oakland County Jail.1

 

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”); 

 

1

 Plaintiff asks the Court for “whatever relief this Court can give [him] in getting some 

medical treatment for [his] ear.” Pl. Pet. at 3. The Court interprets Plaintiff’s request as one 

for injunctive relief. 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 01/16/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 159
2 

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. 

Furthermore, after the R&R was issued, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, 

with his new address being a detention facility in Nevada. See Notice of Change of Address 

(Dkt. 17).2 “It is well established that ‘a prisoner’s transfer to a different correctional facility 

generally moots his request for injunctive relief against employees of the transferor facility.’” 

Herrera v. Mich. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 10-11215, 2011 WL 3862640, at *3 (E.D. Mich. 

July 22, 2011) (quoting Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 415 (2d Cir. 2002)); see also 

Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (finding a prisoner’s request for injunctive 

relief moot because the prisoner was “no longer confined to the institution” where the 

challenged actions occurred). Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s petition for this 

additional reason. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s petition for emergency intervention (Dkt. 

13). 

 

2

 The R&R was originally sent to Plaintiff at the Oakland County Jail, but it was returned as 

undeliverable. See Dkt. 18. The Magistrate Judge sent the R&R to Plaintiff at his new 

location — in Nevada — on November 18, 2014. That mailing has not been returned as 

undeliverable. 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 01/16/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 160
3 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 16, 2015 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented 

parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the 

Notice of Electronic Filing on January 16, 2015. 

 s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 29 Filed 01/16/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 161