United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Alistair E. Newbern Hon. J.
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S
OBJECTIONS (DKT. 34), ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(DKT. 33) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS (DKTS.
31, 32) AS MOOT
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case challenges the United States Department of
Agriculture's (“USDA”) alleged failure to
protect Petitioner from foreclosure by a private bank that
held 90% of the mortgage on Petitioner's property.
Petitioner, Cory Lea (“Petitioner” or
“Lea”) maintains the USDA violated the 2008 farm
bill legislation by not enforcing a foreclosure moratorium to
halt proceedings instituted against him. Lea filed a petition
under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5
U.S.C. § 701, et seq., related to (1) the
USDA's “fail[ure] [to] act on [t]he 2008 Farm Bill
and the [foreclosure] moratorium relief it provided in 7
C.F.R 766.358” for borrowers, and (2) “an
accepted discrimination complaint still unresolved [at] the
USDA's Office of Civil Rights.” Dkt. 1, Pg. ID 2,
USDA filed a motion to dismiss, Dkt. 22, to which Petitioner
responded in opposition. Dkt. 23. Pending before the Court is
Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern's Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommends the
Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, dismiss the
Petition, and deny Lea's additional pending motions as
moot. See Dkt. 33. Lea filed Objections to the
Magistrate's R&R. Dkt. 34.
reasons outlined below, Petitioner's objections are
OVERRULED; the R&R is
ADOPTED; Defendants' motion to dismiss
is GRANTED; and Plaintiff's Motions
(Dkts. 31 and 32) are DENIED AS MOOT.
relevant facts in this case were summarized in Magistrate
Judge Newbern's R&R, and those facts are adopted for
purposes of this order. See Dkt. 33, Pg. IDs 215-20.
Standard of Review
party may object to and seek review of an R&R, but must
act within fourteen days of service of the R&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a
waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Filing objections that raise
some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will
not preserve all objections a party has to an R&R.
Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th
Cir. 1991). The district court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
those objections that are specific are entitled to a de
novo review under the statute. Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 606, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The
parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the
magistrate's report that the district court must
specially consider.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). A general objection, or one that
merely restates the arguments previously presented, does not
sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the
magistrate judge. An “objection” that does
nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge's
determination, “without explaining the source of the
error, ” is not considered a valid objection.
Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
objections enable the Court to focus on the particular issues
in contention. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. Without
specific ob- jections, “[t]he functions of the district
court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and
the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication
of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than
saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the
Magistrate's Act.” Id. “[O]bjections
disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate's
recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings [the
objector] believed were in error” are too summary in
nature. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.
1995) (alterations added).
gravamen of Lea's complaint is that “the [USDA] and
the secretary failed to enforce its own rules and regulations
and an Act of Congress that provided moratorium relief
against foreclosure until a hearing on the merits by the
Administrative Law Judge.” Dkt. 1, Pg. ID 6. The
statute at issue provides a moratorium under certain
circumstances on foreclosure proceedings “instituted by
the Department of Agriculture.” See 7 U.S.C.A.
§ 1981a(b)(1). However, in this case the foreclosure
proceedings were ...