Grand Rapids, City of v. Hatcher

Filing 10

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 ; remanding Case Nos. 1:13-CV-412 and 1:13-CV-413 to the 61st District Court; denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for clerk's entry of default and to enforce judgment by default ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS,
Plaintiff,
File No. 1:13-CV-412
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
ERIC DWAYNE HATCHER,
Defendant.
/
and
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS,
Plaintiff,
File No. 1:13-CV-413
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
ERIC DWAYNE HATCHER,
Defendant.
/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 29, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a report
and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the captioned cases be remanded to the

61st District Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 6, R&R.)1 Defendant
Eric Dwayne Hatcher filed objections to the R&R on May 15, 2013. (Dkt. No. 8, Obj.)
This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R
to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of
the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). “[A] general objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of

contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must
be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and
contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Defendant objects to the R&R because he did not consent to the Magistrate Judge’s
jurisdiction to conduct hearings in this matter. Defendant’s objection lacks merit. This Court
referred these cases to the Magistrate Judge for all pretrial purposes. (Dkt. No. 4, Order of
Reference.) That order authorized the Magistrate Judge to file an R&R on all dispositive
matters. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge was authorized to proceed on dispositive matters by
R&R without the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Upon review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over these state civil infraction proceedings and that the cases must be remanded
to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, the

1

The R&R, objections, order of reference, and motion are identical in both cases and
carry the same docket numbers. Accordingly, this order will refer to only one docket number
for each of these pleadings.
2

Court cannot consider Defendant’s motion for default. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Hatcher’s objections to the R&R (Dkt.
No. 8) are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 29, 2013, R&R (Dkt. No. 6) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the captioned cases are REMANDED to the 61st
District Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for clerk’s entry of default and
to enforce judgment by default (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: May 16, 2013

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3