Opinion ID: 2975388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The district court possessed jurisdiction over Harris’s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over Harris’s state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). We have jurisdiction over Harris’s appeal from the district court’s final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. that issue, and because the district court correctly dismissed Harris’s claims on the merits, we need not reach the question of qualified immunity. See R.S.W.W., Inc. v. City of Keego Harbor, 397 F.3d 427, 440 (6th Cir. 2005) (“Because the Court upholds the district court’s dismissal of the equal protection claim on its merits, it need not address whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.”). 6 The district court adopted the R & R on the ground that Harris had failed to object to it. J.A. at 396 (Dist. Ct. Order Accepting R & R at 2); see also FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b) (requiring the district court to review R & R de novo upon any party’s objection). We have held that a party’s failure to object to the recommendations of a magistrate judge constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). But “[t]he Walters court also made clear that a party shall be informed by the magistrate that objections must be filed within ten days or further appeal is waived.” Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (noting that the Supreme Court approved the Walters rule in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985)). When the R & R “contains no such notice to the plaintiffs, and therefore does not comport with the Walters rule[, w]e cannot presume that the plaintiffs have waived their argument that the substance of the report is still at issue.” Id. at 519-20. In this case, moreover, DPS has not raised the waiver issue on appeal. 7