United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
EDWARD F. SIMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
VSP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, etal., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 10, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for default
judgment (ECF No. 152). The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R), recommending that Plaintiffs' motion be
granted (ECF No. 164). The matter is presently before the
Court on Defendant John Von Stach's objections to the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 165). Plaintiffs filed a
response (ECF No. 167), to which Defendant replied (ECF No.
168). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo
consideration of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court
denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
objection to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation must "specifically identify the portions
of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which
objections are made and the basis for such objections."
W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). The Court reviews de novo
"those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made."
Id. District courts need not provide de novo review
of frivolous, general, or conclusive objections. Mira v.
Marshall 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986).
Additionally, arguments not raised before the Magistrate
Judge are not properly raised in an objection to a Report and
Recommendation. See United States v. Waters, 158
F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998); Bartlett v. Borgess Hosp.
No. l:17-cv-1138, 2018 WL 4521936 at *1 (W.D.Mich. Sept.
argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in her determination
of damages (PI. Obj., ECF No.165 at PageID.751-53; R&R,
ECF No. 164 at PageID.742). The Magistrate Judge recommended
that default judgment be entered against all Defendants,
joint and several, in the amount of $462, 971.20 (R&R,
ECF No. 164 at PageID.742). Defendant argues that the
calculation of damages is "totally incorrect" (Def
Obj., ECF No. 165 at PageID.751). Defendant points to no
specific error in the Magistrate Judge's damages
calculation, but instead challenges the substantive basis for
that relief, addresses negotiations in his criminal case, and
alleges that Plaintiffs' counsel has
"fabricated" parts of Plaintiffs' claims
(see Id. at PageID.751-53).
argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in
the Magistrate Judge's analysis or conclusion. As the
Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiffs' motion "appears
appropriate and thorough," and Plaintiff Simpson's
affidavit "sufficiently outlines the basis for the
damages sought" (R&R ECF No. 164 at PageID.741-742).
The Magistrate Judge properly recommended Plaintiffs be
granted default judgment in the amounts outlined in the
Report and Recommendation (see R&R, ECF No. 164
at PageID.742). Defendant's objection is denied as
remainder of Defendant's filing fails to assert proper
objections to the Report and Recommendation. See
W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Plaintiff sets forth several
arguments that do not specifically address the Report and
Recommendation, and otherwise lack merit. For example,
Defendant argues that he has not been afforded due process
and did not receive notice of deadlines as a result of the
withdrawal of defense counsel (Def Obj., ECF No. 165 at
PageID.747). These arguments were not at issue in the Report
and Recommendation. Furthermore, as noted by Plaintiffs and
the Magistrate Judge, Defendant failed to comply with
discovery requests before and after defense counsel withdrew
from this case (PI. Resp., ECF No. 167 at PageID.761-762;
R&R, ECF No. 164 at PageID.739-740). After defense
counsel was allowed to withdraw, the Magistrate Judge
extended Defendant's pertinent discovery deadlines and
placed the parties on notice that Plaintiffs could seek an
entry of default if Defendants continued to fail to comply
with Court orders (R&R, ECF No. 164 at PageID.739).
Defendant's remaining objections, to the extent they
address the Report and Recommendation, are denied.
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. A Default
Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and
Order. See FED. R Civ. P. 58.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 165)
are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 164) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that DEFAULT is entered against
Defendants John Von Stach and Graziella Stach, and the Motion