Leach v. Balint et al

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING 21 PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER AND (2) AFFIRMING 17 MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHALENS OCTOBER 12, 2018 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE - Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KURT L. LEACH,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-11814

v.

Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge

JOHN BALINT, ET AL.,

R. Steven Whalen
United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.
_____________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER (ECF NO. 21) AND (2) AFFIRMING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHALEN’S OCTOBER 12, 2018 ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO STRIKE (ECF NO. 17)
On October 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued an Order
denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants Answers/Defenses to Complaint.
(ECF No. 17, Order Denying Motion to Strike [Doc. # 14].) On October 18, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation,”
which the Court construes as an Objection the Magistrate Judge’s October 12, 2018
non-dispositive pretrial Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a) both provide that a district judge must modify or set aside any portion
of a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive pretrial order found to be “clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The United States
1

Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals have stated that “a finding is
‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)
(explaining the clearly erroneous standard under Rule 52(a)); Hagaman v. Comm'r of
Internal Revenue, 958 F.2d 684, 690 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting U.S. Gypsum Co.). See
also United States v. Mandycz, 200 F.R.D. 353, 356 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (explaining the
standard under Rule 72(a)).
“This standard plainly does not entitle a reviewing court to reverse the finding
of the [Magistrate Judge] simply because it is convinced that it would have decided
the case differently.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573
(1985) (interpreting the clearly erroneous standard in Rule 52(a)). The Sixth Circuit
has noted that: “The question is not whether the finding is the best or only conclusion
that can be drawn from the evidence, or whether it is the one which the reviewing
court would draw. Rather, the test is whether there is evidence in the record to
support the lower court’s finding, and whether its construction of that evidence is a
reasonable one.” Heights Cmty. Cong. v. Hilltop Realty, Inc., 774 F.2d 135, 140 (6th
Cir. 1985).
“The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies only to the magistrate judge’s factual
2

findings; his legal conclusions are reviewed under the plenary ‘contrary to law’
standard. . . . Therefore, [the reviewing court] must exercise independent judgment
with respect to the magistrate judge’s conclusions of law.” Haworth, Inc. v. Herman
Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289, 291 (W.D. Mich.1995) (citing Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.
Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992)). “‘An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply
or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Mattox v. Edelman,
No. 12-13762, 2014 WL 4829583, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2014) (quoting Ford
Motor Co. v. United States, No. 08–12960, 2009 WL 2922875, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Sept. 9, 2009)).
Plaintiff’s “objection,” like his underlying motion to strike, is more in the
nature of a substantive response to a dispositive motion, which was not pending at the
time Plaintiff filed his motion to strike the Defendants’ answer and affirmative
defenses to the Complaint. In fact Plaintiff’s “objection” is largely a cut and paste of
his motion to strike. Plaintiff reiterates his argument that Defendants’ counsel lacked
firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged in the Complaint, which Magistrate Judge
Whalen correctly explained is not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate any portion of Magistrate Judge Whalen’s October 12, 2018
Order that is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, his objections

3

are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge Whalen’s October 12, 2018 Order is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 3, 2019

4