‘‘It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to these findings.”’
How later courts described this case
- ‘‘It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to these findings.”’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TIFFANY THOMAS, ) CASE NO. 1: 25 CV 2167
_ Plaintiff, JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
oy 5 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
) AND RECOMMENDATION
BEACHWOOD CITY SCHOOL ) .
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, __)
Defendant..
This matter comes before the Court upon the Report.and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge J ames A. Grimes, Jr. (ECF #19) Magistrate Judge Grimes recommends that the Plaintiff’ s.
Motions for a Preliminary Injunction and for an evidentiary hearing be denied and that
Defendant’s Motion to file supplemental documents in opposition to the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction be granted. No obj ection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed.
The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
depends upon whether obj ections were made to that report. When obj ections are made to a report
and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 advisory committee’s notes (citations omitted). See also, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985)(‘‘It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of magistrate
judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party
objects to these findings.”’)
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the
findings and analysis set forth therein. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Grimes (ECF #19) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction (ECF #3) and an evidentiary hearing (ECF #10) are denied.'
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONALD C. Nice
United States District'Judge
DATED: | Wht 4 LOU
Plaintiff has filed two objections that do not appear to seek a review of an Order issued by
Magistrate Judge Grimes. See ECF ## 20 and 21. As such this Court will not address □□
them.