UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’ Report and Recommendation. 

(R. 43.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Morris 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. 43, PID 188–89.) The time to file objections has expired and no objections 

have been filed. 

The Court finds that the parties’ failure to object is a procedural default, waiving review 

of the Magistrate Judge’s findings by this Court. 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 in Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-ofMARTIN MARKOWICZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

ROYAL OAK POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

KORB, VON OCHTEN, HILL, A & M 

TOWING YARD IMPOUND, STANTON, 

ISAACSON, SPELLMAN, BOBEK, 

STIENKE, and JAY, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-11212-LJM-PTM 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 

ORDER GRANTING ROYAL OAK DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON 

THE PLEADINGS [40] AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS JAY AND A & M 

TOWING YARD IMPOUND 

2:15-cv-11212-LJM-PTM Doc # 44 Filed 01/03/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 191
2 

appellate-review rule rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a 

procedural default waiving review even at the district court level.” 474 U.S. at 149; see also 

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)). The Court further held that this rule violates 

neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution. 

The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and accepts her recommended disposition. It follows that the motion for 

judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendants Detective Von Ochten, Sergeant Stanton, Officer 

Isaacson, Officer Spellman, Officer Bobek, Officer Stienke, Officer Hill, Officer Korb, and 

Royal Oak Police Department is GRANTED and that Defendants Jay and A & M Towing Yard 

Impound are DISMISSED. As this order resolves this litigation, a separate judgment will issue. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

Dated: January 3, 2017 U.S. 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 3, 2017. 

s/Keisha Jackson 

Case Manager 

2:15-cv-11212-LJM-PTM Doc # 44 Filed 01/03/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 192