Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Bolen

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: April 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-10474
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS CO,

Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-10474

v. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

MAVERICK BOLEN ET AL,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED JANUARY 31, 2025 (Dkt. 31) and (2) GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO MAVERICK BOLEN (Dkt. 29)

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr, issued on January 31, 2025 (Dkt. 31). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s motion for default judgment against to Defendant Maverick Bolen (Dkt. 29) be granted. 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, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to Defendant Bolen (Dkt. 29). SO ORDERED.

s/Mark A. Goldsmith Dated: April 22, 2025 MARK A. GOLDSMITH Detroit, Michigan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE