United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED ORDER FOR ENTRY
J. DANIEL BREEN, District Judge.
Before the Court is the December 16, 2013 emergency motion for immediate possession of collateral filed by the Plaintiff, Bayader Fooder Trading, LLC ("Bayader"). (D.E. 8.) Pursuant to an order of reference (D.E. 9), United States Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant entered a report and recommendation on August 21, 2014,  recommending approval and entry by this Court of the order submitted contemporaneously with the motion. (D.E. 38.) Objections to the report and recommendation were timely filed by the Defendants, Gregory L. Wright and Wright Farms 1 Haymakers, Inc. (sometimes collectively referred to as "Wright"), to which Bayader responded.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are made to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. "[T]he filing of an objection does not oblige the district court to ignore the report and recommendation; it requires the court to give fresh consideration to the finding objected to insofar as the objection impugns the integrity of the finding." Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 465 F.App'x 448, 456 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 545 (2012).
FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Bayader is a commodities-trading firm located in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Wright is a third-generation hay farmer whose operation is located near the town of Dresden in northwest Tennessee. In April 2012, Wright contracted with Bayader to provide 21, 750 metric tons of alfalfa hay for which Plaintiff made a down payment of $435, 000. Bayader entered into other contracts to resell the hay to customers in the Middle East and elsewhere. No hay was shipped, however. Following a meeting on July 19, 2012, the parties entered into a second agreement, under which Wright promised to provide $435, 000 in hay to Bayader by a date certain. The Defendants also granted Bayader a security interest in certain items of farm equipment. Again, the deadline passed without shipment. Nor was the amount paid for the hay returned. Based on Wright's material breach of the contract between the parties, Bayader seeks possession of the collateral, including two John Deere tractors, a hay cutter, two hay balers, an HTS rake, two trailers and two trucks.
OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
The Defendants have made numerous objections to the report and recommendation, which the Court will address seriatim.
1. Defendants Delivered No Hay in 2012.
Wright objects to the magistrate judge's finding that it provided no hay in 2012. Defendants argue that they in fact had 21, 000 metric tons of hay ready to ship to Bayader. It is averred that, although they grew only 1, 600 110-pound bales of hay in 2012 and did not deliver that hay due to drought, they obtained the 21, 000 metric tons from other farmers. According to Wright, they notified Plaintiff of the availability of the hay but Bayader failed to inspect the commodity pursuant to the agreement or pay shipping expenses.
The page of hearing testimony cited by the Defendants in support of their objection contained the following:
Q: And your testimony today is that you grew 21, 000 ...