UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report and Recommendation. 

(R. 19.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge notified the 

parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of service, as provided 

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), 

and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.” 

(R. 15, PID 139.) No objections have been filed and the time to do so has elapsed. 

In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit 

established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party shall file objections with the district 

court or else waive right to appeal” and that “a party shall be informed by the magistrate [judge] 

that objections must be filed within ten days or further appeal is waived.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court held that this rule violates neither the Federal 

Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution. Thus, the Court finds that the parties’ failure to 

object is a procedural default, waiving review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings by this Court. 

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (explaining that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-appellate-review rule 

DOUGLAS GARREN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

MAHIR ALSALMAN, 

NICHOLAS L. SPRINGSTEAD, and 

CORIZON HEALTH CARE, P.M.C., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:15-cv-11641-LJM-MKM 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [15] AND MOTION TO DISMISS [18] 

2:15-cv-11641-LJM-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 141
2 

rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving 

review even at the district court level”); Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 

2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the 

portions of the report to which no objection was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)). 

Applying Walters, the Court finds that the parties have forfeited further review by failing 

to file timely objections. True, Plaintiff Douglas Garren may not have received a copy of the 

Report (the copy of the Report that was mailed to Garren was returned as undeliverable), which 

could explain his failure to object. But this does not change things. It is Garren’s responsibility to 

provide the Court with his current mailing address and he has not provided the Court with his 

address following his parole (or other transfer from his prior facility). 

Thus, Mahir Alsalman, Corizon Health Care, P.M.C., and Nicholas L. Springstead’s 

Motion to Dismiss (R. 15) is GRANTED and Alsalman’s Motion to Dismiss (R. 18) is 

GRANTED. Garren’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: June 29, 2016 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 29, 2016. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:15-cv-11641-LJM-MKM Doc # 21 Filed 06/29/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 142