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)

Download PDF
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   

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?