UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GIRISH SHAH, 

 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 

 09-CV-12709 

vs. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

NXP SEMICONDUCTORS 

USA, INC., 

 

 Defendant. 

________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART THE PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR REVIEW OF 

CLERK’S ORDER ON TAXATION OF COSTS 

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

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, issued on March 6, 2013. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge 

recommends that the parties’ cross-motions for review of clerk’s order on taxation of costs 

(Dkts. 43, 46) be granted in part and denied in part. In sum, the Magistrate Judge recommends 

that costs be taxed in favor of Defendant in the total amount of $2,664.63. 

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, 1373-4 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure 

to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 

4:09-cv-12709-MAG-RSW Doc # 54 Filed 03/25/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1129
2 

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 adopts the recommendation. 

Accordingly, the parties’ cross-motions for review of clerk’s order on taxation of costs 

are granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation, and Defendant’s costs are taxed in the total amount of $2,664.63. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 25, 2013 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Flint, 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 March 25, 2013. 

 s/Deborah J. Goltz 

 DEBORAH J. GOLTZ 

 Case Manager 

4:09-cv-12709-MAG-RSW Doc # 54 Filed 03/25/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1130