1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 ROCHELLE DANIEL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-cv-11479 

v. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 GOODYEAR TIRE/CBSD, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ACCEPTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED AUGUST 8, 2016 (Dkt. 22), (2) GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 12), (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (Dkt. 15), AND 

(4) GRANTING PLAINTIFF 14 DAYS TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

Magistrate Judge Stephanie D. Davis, issued on August 8, 2016 (Dkt. 22). In the R&R, the 

magistrate judge recommends granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12), denying 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 15), and granting Plaintiff 

30 days to file an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified by the Court in the 

R&R. 

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-11479-MAG-SDD Doc # 23 Filed 09/02/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 223
2 

328 F.3d 98, 1078 (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.”). 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 in part. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12), denies Plaintiff’s 

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. 15), and grants Plaintiff leave to file 

an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge in the R&R. 

Plaintiff shall file the second amended complaint on or before September 16, 2016. If Plaintiff 

does not timely file a second amended complaint, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 2, 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 September 2, 2016. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager 

2:15-cv-11479-MAG-SDD Doc # 23 Filed 09/02/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 224