United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Randy D. Pearce, Plaintiff,
Chrysler LLC Pension Plan, Defendant.
Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Magistrate
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. Cox United States District Judge
Randy D. Pearce (“Plaintiff”) originally filed
this ERISA action against Defendant Chrysler LLC Pension Plan
(“Defendant”) in Wayne County Circuit court.
(Doc. # 1). Defendant subsequently removed the matter to this
Court, based upon federal question jurisdiction on November
29, 2010. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael
Hluchaniuk on April 6, 2011. (Doc. # 11). The parties had
disputes concerning discovery and the administrative record.
Based on Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk's recommendation,
this matter was remanded to the administrator for further
development of the record. (Doc. # 26, 30).
case was later reopened after the administrative proceedings
concluded. (Doc. # 33). On January 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed
a motion for leave to amend the complaint and a motion for
judgment on the record. (Doc. # 38, 39). Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend complaint sought to include a claim
for relief under ERISA § 502(a)(3), in addition to the
claim already brought under § 502(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff
later filed an amended motion for leave to amend the
complaint. (Doc. # 50). These motions were referred to
Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk. (Doc. # 51). Defendant filed a
response to Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the
record, which the Magistrate Judge treated as Defendant's
motion for judgment on the record. (Doc. # 45, 55).
Judge Hluchaniuk issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), wherein he recommended that
Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the record be denied,
Defendant's motion for judgment on the record be granted,
and Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend be denied.
(Doc. # 55). These recommendations were adopted by the
undersigned. (Doc. # 60).
appealed to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed in
part. To the extent that the Sixth Circuit
disagreed with the decisions below, it concluded that there
was a conflict between the plan document and the summary plan
description (“SPD”) and that Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim under
§ 502(a)(3) was not futile. (Doc. # 64). As such, the
Sixth Circuit noted that the existence of a material conflict
between the SPD and the plan could support a claim for
equitable relief. (Id. at Pg ID 1858-59, 1861-62).
case was reversed and remanded as to the § 502(a)(3)
issue. Sometime thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's § 502(a)(3)
claims. (Doc. # 72, Def.'s Mo.; Doc. # 73, Pl.'s
Mo.). These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge
Stephanie Dawkins Davis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. # 76).
February 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Davis issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R), wherein she recommended that
the Court DENY Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
and GRANT Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
# 87, R&R). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on
March 8, 2017. (Doc. # 89, Pl.'s Objs.). Defendant
responded to Plaintiff's objections on March 22, 2017.
(Doc. # 90, Def.'s Resp.).
Court finds Plaintiff's objections to be improper and
without merit. The Court shall therefore ACCEPT AND ADOPT the
R&R, DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 89), and GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 16).
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party objecting
to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate
Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Objections must “(A) specify the
part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or
report to which a person objects; and (B) state the basis for
the objection.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).
are not “a second opportunity to present the argument
already considered by the Magistrate Judge.”
Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313
F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court
should not consider arguments that have not first been
presented to the magistrate judge. See Stonecrest
Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads, 770 F.Supp.2d
778, 785 (E.D. N.C. 2011).
district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the ...