United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated August 15, 2016 (the
“Report”). (ECF No. 53.) The Report recommends
that the Court grant the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
pursuant to Rule 12(c) (the “Rule 12(c) Motion”)
filed by Defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC
(“Aurora”) on July 1, 2016 (ECF No. 52) and that
Plaintiff Lolina Porter's complaint against Aurora be
did not respond to or otherwise oppose Aurora's Rule
12(c) Motion. After the Report was entered, on August 31,
2016, Porter filed a document entitled,
“Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing and Motion to
Object Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Motion to
Deny Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
Motion to Order Defendant to Relinquish the Subject Property
to Plaintiff Free and Clear and Motion to Order Defendant
Aurora Loan Services to Pay the Delinquent HOA Fees”
(the “August 31 Filing”). (ECF No. 54.) Aurora
has not responded to Porter's August 31 Filing. On
September 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered an order
denying Porter's August 31 Filing to the extent it serves
as a petition for rehearing, but making no determination to
the extent it serves as objections to the Report. (ECF No.
following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and the Rule 12(c)
Motion is GRANTED.
enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the
federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of
district-court duties to magistrate judges. See United
States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001)
(citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70
(1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App'x
308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). “The district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept,
reject, or modify the magistrate judge's proposed
findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
district court is not required to review -- under a de
novo or any other standard -- those aspects of the
report and recommendation to which no objection is made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The
district court should adopt the magistrate judge's
findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed.
Id. at 151. Arguments made in an objection to a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation that were
not first presented to the magistrate for consideration are
deemed waived. See, e.g., Becker v. Clermont Cty.
Prosecutor, 450 F. App'x 438, 439 (6th Cir. 2011);
The Glidden Co. v. Kinsella, 386 F. App'x 535,
544 (6th Cir. 2010); Murr v. United States,
200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000).
Report, the Magistrate Judge found that the “only
claims remaining against Aurora are for ‘deceptive
practices, ' infliction of emotional distress, and
‘slander of title/slander of credit, ' all of which
Aurora seeks to dismiss in the [Rule 12(c) Motion].”
(ECF No. 53 at 2-3.) The Magistrate Judge noted that Porter
had not responded to the Rule 12(c) Motion and that, at the
time of the Report's entry, the time for Porter to file a
response to the Rule 12(c) Motion had passed. (Id.
at 1.) After addressing the merits, the Magistrate Judge
“recommended that Aurora's [Rule 12(c) Motion] be
granted in full, and that Porter's claims against Aurora
be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.” (Id. at 9.)
August 31 Filing, Porter does not deny that she was served
with Aurora's Rule 12(c) Motion or that she had adequate
time to respond before the Magistrate Judge entered the
Report. Porter offers reasons why she failed to timely
respond to past motions or discovery requests, but she offers
no reason for her failure in this instance. (ECF No. 54 at
3-4.) Because the arguments Porter raises in her August 31
Filing were not first presented to the Magistrate Judge for
consideration, those arguments are waived. See Becker, 450 F.
App'x at 439; Glidden, 386 F. App'x at 544; Murr, 200
F.3d at 902 n.1.
had Porter not waived the arguments she now raises in her
August 31 Filing, those arguments do not specifically object
to any aspect of the Report's findings of fact or
conclusions of law. Porter makes general allegations about
Aurora's and other Defendants' unlawful conduct, asks
for the return of the subject property located at 6131
Woodstock View Drive in Millington, Tennessee, and asks for
other monetary relief, but Porter asks that the Report be
rejected without identifying any error in the Report that
warrants rejection or modification. (ECF No. 54 at 4-8.)
Because Porter has failed to file specific objections to the
Report, adoption of the Report is warranted. See Arn, 474
U.S. at 151.
foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and Aurora's
Rule 12(c) Motion is GRANTED.
 A district court may raise the waiver
issue sua sponte. Numerous district courts in this
circuit have done so where (1) no response was filed to a
party's objection to the report and recommendation; or
(2) a response was filed, but did not argue waiver. See,
e.g., Tighe v. Berghuis, No. 1:12-CV-1314, 2016 WL
5537287, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2016) (no response to
objection); Lewis v. Spitters, No. 1:14-CV-917, 2015
WL 5682405, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2015) (response did
not argue waiver); Briggs v. Miles, No. 1:13-CV-228,
2015 WL 1120132, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2015) (no
response to various objections); Bauman v. City of
Cleveland, No. 1:04-CV-1757, 2015 WL 893285, at *8 (N.D.
Ohio Mar. 3, 2015) (response did not argue waiver);
Enyart v. Coleman, 29 F.Supp.3d 1059, 1070 (N.D.
Ohio 2014) (response did not argue waiver).
 To the extent Porter's August 31
Filing asks for additional relief beyond asking for the
Report to be modified or rejected, those requests ...