Marco Strickland v. Paul Cusick

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-10696
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARCO STRICKLAND,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-10696

vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

PAUL CUSICK,

Defendant. ___________________________/

ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2025 (Dkt. 19) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 3) AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 22) AS MOOT

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman, issued on September 15, 2025 (Dkt. 19). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Marco Strickland’s complaint with prejudice because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 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, 328 F.3d 98, 108 (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.”). However, 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. Accordingly, Strickland’s action is dismissed with prejudice. Strickland’s motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 3) and Cusick’s motion to dismiss (Dkt.22) are dismissed as moot. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2025 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 November 18, 2025.

s/Joseph Heacox JOSEPH HEACOX Case Manager