United States of America v. Eli Harvey

Filing 126

ORDER Adopting 113 Report and Recommendation Denying 95 Motion to Stay filed by Eli Harvey, Denying 110 Motion filed by Eli Harvey, Denying 101 Motion filed by Eli Harvey, Denying 89 Motion to Set Aside filed by Eli Harvey, Denying 106 Motion filed by Eli Harvey. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

No. 04-72180

v.

Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

ELI HARVEY,

R. Steven Whalen
United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant.
and
THE PIC GROUP, INC.,
Garnishnee.
________________________________/
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)
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
1

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.)

1

The Defendant also filed two other documents that did not specifically refer to the February
21, 2017 Report and Recommendation but did refer to the motions underlying that Report.
(ECF Nos. 114, 115.) The Plaintiff also filed Responses to these filings. (ECF Nos. 118,
119.) The Court has reviewed these filings and finds them to be general complaints about
the resolution of his case and not specific objections directed to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation.
2

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.
3

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
4

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 and

Recommendation (ECF No. 113);
2) REJECTS Defendant’s Objections (ECF No. 116);
3) DENIES Defendant’s motions to set aside garnishment (ECF Nos. 89, 101);
4) DENIES Defendant’s motions to stay writs of garnishment and for
evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos. 95, 106); and
5) DENIES Defendant’s motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 110).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 30, 2017

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on
March 30, 2017.

s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

6