Marsh v. Rhodes et al

Filing 61

ORDER Granting 50 MOTION By Leave of Appeal; Overruling Objections to Magistrate Judge's April 21, 2016, Order filed by Devonne Marsh Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEVONNE MARSH,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-12947
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
LEO RHODES and THE CITY
OF DETROIT,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION BY LEAVE
OF APPEAL [Doc. 50] and OVERRULING HIS OBJECTIONS TO
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S APRIL 21, 2016 ORDER [Doc. 36; Doc. 38]
On April 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand entered an order denying
Plaintiff DeVonne Marsh’s motion to amend the complaint and sanction Defendants
[Doc. 36], along with a separate Report and Recommendation pertaining to Defendants’
motion to dismiss. Marsh objected to the order and R & R in a single document. [Doc.
38]. The Court addressed Marsh’s objections to the R & R, but did not consider his
objections to the order. [Doc. 42].
This matter is before the Court on Marsh’s “motion by leave of appeal,” in which
he points out that the Court failed to consider his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
order and asks the Court to “address the merits of his objections.” [Doc. 50, PgID 388].
The Court GRANTS Marsh’s motion and will consider his objections to the order below.
When reviewing objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive
matter, a district court must modify or set aside any part of the order that is “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); United

States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602-03 (6th Cir. 2001). A non-specific 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.” Bellmore-Byrn,
2016 WL 5219541, at *1 (quoting Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). Neither is an objection that “merely reiterates an
argument previously presented.” Id.
In his objections to Magistrate Judge Grand’s order, Marsh merely summarizes
Judge Grand’s findings, reiterates arguments he made in his motion, and summarily
states that he objects to the order. He fails to make any specific arguments or assert
how or why any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings were erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, Marsh’s objections are invalid.
An independent review of the order shows that none of the Magistrate Judge’s
factual findings or legal conclusions is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The Court OVERRULES Marsh’s objections and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
Grand’s order.
IT IS ORDERED.  
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: January 25, 2017

2