Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Harvey

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 30, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ELI HARVEY, Defendant. and THE PIC GROUP, INC., Garnishnee.

          R. STEVEN WHALEN ELI HARVEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN'S FEBRUARY 21, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 113), (2) REJECTING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 116); (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE GARNISHMENT (ECF NOS. 89, 101); (4) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO STAY AND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ECF NOS. 95, 106); AND (5) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SEPARATE EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ECF NO. 110)

          PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On February 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 113) in this 13-year old student loan case to deny Defendant's two motions to set aside garnishment (ECF Nos. 89, 101), to deny Defendant's two motions to stay writs of garnishment and for evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos. 95, 106), and to deny Defendant's motion for separate evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 110). The Defendant filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 116).[1] The Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Objections. (ECF No. 120.) Having conducted a de novo review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), of those parts of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which specific objections have been filed, the Court REJECTS Defendant's Objections, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, DENIES Defendant's motions to set aside garnishments, DENIES Defendant's motion to stay writs of garnishment and for an evidentiary hearing, and DENIES Defendant's separate motion for an evidentiary hearing.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation thoroughly reports the relevant history of this student loan case, and the Court adopts that summary here. (Report 1-4.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the report and recommendation to which objections have been filed. 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Objections must be timely to be considered. A party who receives notice of the need to timely object yet fails to do so is deemed to waive review of the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendations. Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 519-20 (6th Cir. 1999). “[A] party must file timely objections with the district court to avoid waiving appellate review.” Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (emphasis in original).

         Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge. An “objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge's determination, “without explaining the source of the error, ” is not considered a valid objection. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Specific objections enable the Court to focus on the particular issues in contention. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. Without specific objections, “[t]he functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrate's Act.” Id. “[O]bjections disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate's recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings [the objector] believed were in error” are too summary in nature. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (alterations added). “As long as a party was properly informed of the consequences of failing to object, the party waives subsequent review by the district court and appeal to this court if it fails to file an objection.” Id.

         III. ANALYSIS

         Defendant's objections fail to specify the findings of the Magistrate Judge that the Defendant believes are in error. Defendant merely retells his side of this student loan action but does not pinpoint any specific error that he claims the Magistrate Judge committed and merely restates the very same arguments that the Magistrate Judge expressly rejected. An “objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge's determination, “without explaining the source of the error, ” is not considered a valid objection. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. Accordingly, the Court REJECTS Defendant's Objections.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

         1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Whalen's February 21, 2017 Report ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.