United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Patricia T. Morris Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ACCEPT MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AS TIMELY FILED, OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, AND
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge
February 26, 2015, Defendant Vincent Kent Williams was
sentenced to 140 months after pleading guilty to aiding and
abetting the distribution of cocaine base. ECF No. 135. His
sentence was affirmed on appeal. ECF No. 195. On June 24,
2016, Williams filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 233. That motion was referred to
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris for decision, ECF No.
235, and Judge Morris issued a report and recommendation on
January 18, 2017. ECF No. 259. In the report and
recommendation, Judge Morris recommended that Williams's
motion to vacate be denied because his ineffective assistance
of counsel claims were procedurally barred and because he was
properly sentenced as a career offender.
the Magistrate Judge's report explicitly stated that the
parties to this action could object to and seek review of the
recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report,
Williams did not file objections within that time period. On
February 21, 2017, over a month after the report and
recommendation was issued, the Court adopted the report and
recommendation. ECF No. 260, 261. Later that same day,
Williams filed objections to the report and recommendation.
ECF No. 262. On August 14, 2017, Williams filed a motion to
accept his motion for reconsideration as timely. ECF No. 275.
He attached the motion for reconsideration as an exhibit to
objections are untimely. However, even if they were
considered on their merits, Williams would not be entitled to
relief. Williams's motion to accept the motion for
reconsideration as timely filed will be granted. However,
because Williams's does not identify a defect in Judge
Morris's report and recommendation or the Court's
order dismissing his § 2255 motion, the motion for
reconsideration will be denied.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to
and seek review of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Objections must be stated with specificity. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If
objections are made, “[t]he 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). De novo review requires at least a
review of the evidence before the magistrate judge; the Court
may not act solely on the basis of a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co.,
656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the
evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. See
Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F.Supp.2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich.
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.
See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D.
Mich. 2004). 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). 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.”
to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h), a party
can file a motion for reconsideration of a previous order,
but must do so within fourteen days. A motion for
reconsideration will be granted if the moving party shows:
“(1) a palpable defect, (2) the defect misled the court
and the parties, and (3) that correcting the defect will
result in a different disposition of the case.”
Michigan Dept. of Treasury v. Michalec, 181
F.Supp.2d 731, 733-34 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (quoting E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(g)(3)). A “palpable defect” is
“obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or
plain.” Id. at 734 (citing Marketing
Displays, Inc. v. Traffix Devices, Inc., 971 F.Supp.2d
262, 278 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “[T]he Court will not grant
motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present
the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or
by reasonable implication.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3).
See also Bowens v. Terris, No. 2:15-CV-10203, 2015
WL 3441531, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2015).
has filed four objections to Judge Morris's report and
recommendation. The objections were untimely. However,
because the Court prefers to resolve matters on their merits
as opposed to via technicalities, the objections will be