United States of America v. Williams et al
Filing
17
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT WILLIAMS AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (the objection of Williams included in DE 16 to the report & recommendation is overruled; the report & recommendation is adopted. This and future entered orders are to be mailed at address given in order). Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 6/24/2014. (Breen, J.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 13-1126
WILLIAM THOMAS WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT WILLIAMS AND
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_____________________________________________________________________________
This cause is before the Court in connection with the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge (D.E. 15) regarding the motion of the Plaintiff, United States of America, for a
default judgment against the Defendants, William Thomas Williams and Jacqueline Climer (D.E.
13). The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be granted. Specifically, the magistrate
judge recommended default judgment against Williams in the amount of $241,410.14 as of
November 11, 2013; voiding of the fraudulent conveyance of real property located at 227 Tulip
Street in Henderson, Tennessee, more particularly described in paragraph six of the Plaintiff's
complaint; as well as a finding that the valid federal tax liens against Williams have attached to the
real property, the tax liens attached to the real property are foreclosed, and the property should be
sold free and clear of any right, title, lien, claim or interest of all parties, with the proceeds of the
sale to be distributed to the United States and applied against Williams' outstanding federal tax
liability, with any excess funds to be paid to him. The magistrate judge further reported and
recommended that, by virtue of the fact that a 2003 transfer of the real property at issue was
fraudulent as to the United States, Climer has no interest therein.
Although the docket reflects service of the complaint in June 2013, neither Defendant has
filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this case. Nor have they responded to the motions for entry
of default or for default judgment. While no objections to the report and recommendation were filed
with the Court, the Plaintiff received correspondence directly from Williams on or about March 14,
2014, which it in turn filed with the Court.
"It is well-established that a party must file objections to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation in order to preserve the issues for appeal." Stamtec, Inc. v. Anson, 296 F. App'x
518, 520 (6th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Failure to do so may result in waiver of any objections. Id.
Williams' submission will be construed as an objection to the report and recommendation. In ruling
on objections to a report and recommendation, the Court is to make a de novo determination as to
those portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections have been
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Under this type of review, the district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3).
Only specific objections, rather than those of a general nature, will be considered by the
district court. Etherly v. Rehabitat Sys. of Mich., No. 13-11360, 2014 WL 2559192, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. June 6, 2014). A general objection is insufficient because, in objecting to the whole of the
report and recommendation, it has the same effect as a failure to object. Steagall v. Comm' of Soc.
Sec., No. 1:12-CV-876, 2014 WL 1302606, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2014). "Each objection to the
magistrate judge's recommendation should include how the analysis is wrong, why it was wrong and
how de novo review will obtain a different result on that particular issue." Austin v. Comm'r of Soc.
2
Sec., No. 1:12-CV-728, 2014 WL 897139, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2014). Merely stating a
disagreement with a magistrate judge's suggested resolution is not a specific objection that alerts the
district court to an alleged error by the magistrate judge. Id.
The only remotely specific objection contained in Williams' missive is his contention that
the transfer of the property at issue was not in fact made to defraud the United States. "Once the
[c]lerk has entered a default against a defendant, the [c]ourt must treat all well-pleaded allegations
in the [c]omplaint as true." AF Holdings LLC v. Bossard, 976 F. Supp. 2d 927, 929 (W.D. Mich.
2013). Thus, as default has been entered in this matter, the United States has conclusively
established the Defendants' liability. See id. The Court, nonetheless, has discretion in determining
whether default judgment should be entered. King v. Ocwen, No. 07-11359, 2008 WL 111260, at
*3 (E. D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2008). In this case, the Court finds that an exercise of its discretion is
unwarranted, as Williams has offered no evidence, beyond his conclusory assertion, to support a
finding by this Court that the magistrate judge's conclusion with respect to the alleged fraudulent
transfer should be rejected or modified. See Tillman v. Mausser, No. 2:09-cv-904, 2011 WL
2181622, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 2, 2011) (objection to magistrate judge's report and recommendation
overruled where plaintiff offered only conclusory objections lacking evidentiary support).
Accordingly, the objection of Williams to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation
is OVERRULED and the report and recommendation is ADOPTED. The relief sought by the
United States will be granted by separate orders. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy
of this order, as well as those to be entered hereafter, to the Defendants at the following addresses:
William Thomas Williams, 227 Tulip Street, Henderson, Tennessee 38340 and Jacqueline Climer,
720 Garland Road, Henderson, Tennessee 38340.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of June 2014.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?