Hannah v. Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION

DENNIS JEFFERSON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) NO. 3:17-cv-00697

)

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE ) JUDGE CAMPBELL

HOLDINGS, INC. A/K/A FRESENIUS ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.

131), which was filed on August 30, 2019. Through the Report and Recommendation, the

Magistrate Judge recommends Defendant’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 96, 98,

100) be granted and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The Report and Recommendation

is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth below.

Plaintiffs filed objections (Doc. No. 132) to the Report and Recommendation and

Defendant filed a Response (Doc. No. 133). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a

district court reviews de novo any portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific

objection is made. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or

conclusory objections are insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir.

2009). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court

will be preserved for appellate review.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C).

Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. No. 132) do not directly challenge the reasoning of the Report

and Recommendation or lodge specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. Instead,

Plaintiffs appear to simply re-state facts and arguments they previously made, (see Plaintiffs’

Motion to Recuse, Doc. No. 85; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Defendant

Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. Out of Time, Doc. No. 90), and the Court already

considered in prior rulings. (See Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Recuse, Doc. No. 93; Order

denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Deposition, Doc. No. 94; Order affirming Magistrate

Judge’s Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Deposition, Doc. No. 110). Thus,

Plaintiffs’ objections do not provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation.

See Howard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); VanDiver v.

Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (‘An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than

state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been

presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”).

For the reasons described above, Plaintiffs’ objections fail to state viable grounds to

challenge the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, nor do they otherwise provide a basis to reject or

modify the Report and Recommendation. Thus, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation

and fully considered Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ objections are without

merit, and that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 131) should be adopted and approved.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 96, 98, 100) are

GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

It is so ORDERED.

WILLIAM XC J

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE