“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.”
How later courts described this case
- “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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
KEVIN BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) NO. 3:21-cv-00955
)
WOODBURY AUTO GROUP, et al., ) JUDGE CAMPBELL
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY
Defendants. )
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Frensley’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 38), and Defendants’ objections filed in response (Doc. No. 40). Through the Report
and Recommendation, Judge Frensley recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No.
29) be denied. For the reasons discussed below, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted
and approved.
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).
Defendants’ objections simply re-state facts and arguments from their underlying motion
to dismiss, (Compare Doc. No. 40 with Doc. Nos. 30, 34-1), and fail to identify any specific errors
from Judge Frensley’s Report and Recommendation. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 40 at 17 (“The Magistrate
Court violated the well-established law in Tennessee and its Report and recommendation went
contrary to that law and it should be set aside.”)). Thus, Defendants’ 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.”).
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and fully considered Defendants’
objections, the Court concludes Defendants’ objections are without merit, and that the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 38) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED. VE
Ma Z. Cl
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE