David Killebrew v. Gary D. Mickiddy, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID KILLEBREW, Case No. 2:26-cv-10373 Plaintiff, Hon. Brandy R. McMillion v. United States District Judge

GARY D. MICKIDDY, et al., Hon. Elizabeth A. Stafford United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. _________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 47) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY (ECF NO. 41)

Plaintiff David Kilbrew (“Kilbrew”) filed this pro se action against Defendants Click N’ Close, Inc. and Gary D. McKiddy (collectively, “Defendants”). See generally ECF No. 1. Kilbrew also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay the state- court foreclosure proceedings. ECF No. 41. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial matters. ECF No. 8. On July 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Stay. ECF No. 47. At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek review of her recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R. Id. at PageID.247-248. As of the date of this Order, August 3, 2026 —25 days since the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R—neither party has filed objections to the R&R

or contacted the Court to ask for more time to file objections.1 The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see

also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 957-58 (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that a party’s failure to timely object to a report and recommendation allows a court to accept the recommendation “without expressing any views on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”). Similarly, failure to object to an R&R forfeits any further right to

appeal. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that a party forfeits their right to appeal by failing to timely file objections to an R&R). Accordingly, because neither party objected to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Plaintiff’s Motion is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Stay (ECF No. 41) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2026 s/Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed another pleading with the Court during this time. See ECF No. 50.