Rochow v. Life Insurance Company of North America

Filing 100

ORDER signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow DENYING Defendant's 99 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision re 87 Defendant's Motion to Strike filed by Life Insurance Company of North America. (Grimes, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TODD D. ROCHOW ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. ______________________________/ Case No. 04-73628 HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE HONORABLE R. STEVEN WHALEN MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S APPEAL [99] OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION [98] DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE [87]

Before the Court is Defendant's Appeal [99] of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [98] denying Defendant's Motion to Strike Written Reports of Plaintiff's Expert Witness [87]. Defendant in this case moved to strike Dr. David C. Croson's reports that were filed on Plaintiffs' behalf. The Magistrate Judge denied Defendant's Motion to Strike [87] by Report and Recommendation [98]. Defendant Appeals [99]. Plaintiffs did not file a response. The standard of review set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) governs this nondispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Pursuant to that rule, "The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the [Magistrate Judge's] order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a magistrate judge's orders shall not be disturbed unless "found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). The "clearly erroneous" standard requires the Court to affirm the Magistrate's decision unless, after reviewing the entirety of the evidence, it "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." See Sandles v. U.S. Marshal's 1

Serv., 2007 WL 4374077, 1 (E.D. Mich. 2007) (citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Upon review of the record, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in his recommendation. In objecting to the R&R, Defendant simply restates arguments that the Magistrate Judge rejected. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation is well-reasoned and is supported by the law. Defendant has not shown that it is "clearly erroneous." The Court has reviewed the record and being fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Appeal [99] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's R&R [98] is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Strike [87] is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

s/Arthur J. Tarnow ARTHUR J. TARNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 30, 2011

Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served on the attorneys of record herein by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 30, 2011. s/Kim Grimes Acting in the absence of Lisa Ware, Case Manager

2