Tillman v. Kent et al

Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRAVIS TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERICH KENT et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-10084
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 58)
AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 53)
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) recommending that plaintiff
Travis Tillman’s (“Tillman”) motion for default judgment as to defendant Erich
Kent (“Kent”) (ECF No. 53) be denied without prejudice.
Neither party filed an objection to the R&R, and the time to do so has
expired.1 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 for further judicial review. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
1 The Court notes that Tillman has already filed his renewed motion for
default judgment as to Kent. See ECF No. 59.
Case 4:24-cv-10084-SDK-PTM ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual
or legal conclusion, 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, 1373–74 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived
subsequent review of the matter”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806,
807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the part 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 and finds none.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 53) and Tillman’s
motion for default judgment as to Kent (ECF No. 53) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Shalina D. Kumar
SHALINA D. KUMAR
Dated: November 20, 2025 	United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-10084-SDK-PTM ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 2