Kinder v. Northwestern Bank

Filing 55

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 53 ; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, aeb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NANCY KINDER,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
-v)
)
NORTHWESTERN BANK,
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

No. 1:10-cv-405
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OVER OBJECTIONS
On November 2, 2011, this Court issued an order (ECF No. 44) granting in part and referring
in part a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class-action settlement. The magistrate judge
has since issued a Report and Recommendation addressing the fairness of the proposed settlement,
including the fairness of the attorney fee award. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff Kinder filed an objection
to the report recommendation. (ECF No. 54.)
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge,
a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions
of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only
those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding the district court need not provide
de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is
on the parties to “pinpoint those portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must
specifically consider”). Although § 636 requires this Court to review objections de novo, it does not
allow parties to raise, in their objections, new arguments or issues that were not presented to the
magistrate judge. See Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing United

States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998)); see also Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharms., Inc., 679 F.3d 1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the “‘purpose of referring cases
to a magistrate for recommended disposition would be contravened if parties were allowed to
present only selected issues to the magistrate, reserving their full panoply of contentions for the trial
court.’”).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record, including the order referring the matter to the
magistrate, Plaintiff Kinder’s submission to the magistrate judge on the matter of legal fees (ECF
No. 47), the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and relevant legal authority. The Court finds the R&R
accurately reflects the state of the record and arguments advances before the magistrate judge. The
R&R is well-reasoned and is supported by the record at the time and by relevant legal authority.
Having considered Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that those objections generally raise new
facts not presented to the magistrate judge. The Court declines to consider those new facts not
previously presented.
The Report and Recommendation is therefore ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. No
party has objected to any portion of the recommendations regarding the method of notice or the
fairness of the settlement payment.

Plaintiff’s objections to the portion of the report and

recommendation regarding attorney’s fees are OVERRULED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

July 13, 2012

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
Chief United States District Judge

2