Jordan v. Comerica Bank Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 31 Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendants' motion for judgment affirming ERISA benefits determination is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case No. 16-10339

COURTNEY P. JORDAN,

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

Plaintiff,
v.
COMERICA BANK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [31]
In a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued on February 25, 2017 (Dkt. 31),
Magistrate Judge Steven Whalen recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. 22) and grant Defendants' motion for judgment affirming ERISA
benefits determination. (Dkt. 23.) On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed an objection to the
R&R. (Dkt. 34.) For the reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection
and ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the R&R. As a result, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is DENIED [22], Defendants' motion for judgment affirming ERISA benefits
determination is GRANTED [23], and the case is DISMISSED.
I.

Standard of Review
When a party objects to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation

on a dispositive motion, the Court reviews such portions de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
However, only specific objections that pinpoint a source of error are entitled to de novo
review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). General objections, or those

that merely challenge the magistrate judge's ultimate determinations, have the "same
effects as would a failure to object." Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). That is, such objections are invalid, and the Court may treat
them as if they were waived. See Harris v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2017 WL 343729, at *1
(E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2017).
II.

Analysis
Plaintiff's objection argues generally that his case "has validity and merit" because "all

the evidence and documents that he has provided are factual, unlike what the defendants
are purporting to be true." (Dkt. 34, at 6.) Plaintiff further maintains that "important
information was overlooked or lost in translation in this case and otherwise misinterpreted
by the [Magistrate Judge.]" (Id.) His objection fails, however, to pinpoint any legal or
factual error in the R&R. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objection fails to
articulate a meritorious, sustainable objection, and it is overruled. See Arroyo v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 424939, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2016) ("[B]are disagreement with
the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge, without any effort to identify any specific
errors in the Magistrate Judge's analysis that, if corrected, might warrant a different
outcome, is tantamount to an outright failure to lodge objections to the R&R.").
III.

Conclusion
Given that Plaintiff's objection to the R&R has been overruled, the Court ACCEPTS

AND ADOPTS the R&R. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED,
Defendants' motion for judgment affirming ERISA benefits determination is GRANTED, and
the case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
2

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: March 23, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 23, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

3