UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIE JONES, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11694 

vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

DAVID McCORMICK, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________/ 

ORDER 

(1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED APRIL 20, 2016 (Dkt. 28); 

AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 20)

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

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti, issued April 20, 2016. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge 

recommends granting Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss his Equal Protection claim 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2); denying Plaintiff’s request to amend his 

complaint to add a personal injury claim; and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. R&R at 

19 (Dkt. 28). 

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, 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 29 Filed 05/11/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 189
2 

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 grants Plaintiff’s request to voluntarily dismiss his Equal 

Protection claim, see Pl. Resp. at 2; Plaintiff’s request to amend his complaint, id., is denied; and 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 20) is granted. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with 

prejudice, including his Equal Protection claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 11, 2016 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 May 11, 2016. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 29 Filed 05/11/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 190
3 

2:15-cv-11694-MAG-APP Doc # 29 Filed 05/11/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 191