UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARCILKI ROSS, Plaintiff, Case No. 25-10667 v. Honorable Shalina D. Kumar Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti JOSEPH LONGO et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 28)

Plaintiff Marcilki Ross (“Ross”), proceeding pro se, initiated this case against defendants the City of Ferndale, the Ferndale Police Department, Officer Nicholas Gjelaj, Sergeant Toyzan, Judge Joseph Longo, and Prosecutor P. Daniel Christ (together “Defendants”) alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1986, and trespass upon rights under common law arising out of his prosecution and conviction for driving unlicensed and improper plate in the 43rd District Court. ECF No. 1. This case was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). ECF No. 5.

Page 1 of 3 Defendants moved to dismiss Ross’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 7. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 28) recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Ross’s complaint.

The parties did not file 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 for 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 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

Page 2 of 3 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. 28), GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7), and DISMISSES Ross’s complaint (ECF No. 1). This matter is now closed. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: January 6, 2026 United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3