Julia Davis-Harris v. Makower Abbate Guerra Wegner & Vollmer, PLLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-11380
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JULIA DAVIS-HARRIS, Case No. 4:24-cv-11380

Plaintiff, F. Kay Behm v. United States District Judge

MAKOWER ABBATE GUERRA WEGNER & VOLLMER, PLLC, David R. Grand et al., United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants. ___________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION (ECF No. 117)

Currently before the court is Plaintiff Julia Davis-Harris’ objection to Magistrate Judge Grand’s order denying her motion for sanctions against Defendant “Ajax Corporation” (ECF No. 117). See ECF No. 115 (motion); 116 (order denying motion). Ajax filed a response (ECF No. 118) which also seeks sanctions against Davis-Harris. When a litigant objects to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non- dispositive matter, they may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge must then consider any timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the magistrate judge’s order that is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. A magistrate judge’s factual findings

will be reversed only when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Mabry, 518 F.3d 442, 449 (6th Cir. 2008)

(citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). “For an objection to be proper, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d)(1) requires parties to ‘specify the part of the order,

proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which [the party] objects’ and to ‘state the basis for the objection.’” Pearce v. Chrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan, 893 F.3d 339, 346 (6th Cir. 2018). Objections

that dispute the general correctness of the report and recommendation are improper. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). Judge Grand denied Davis-Harris’ motion because she made “only

broad and vague accusations of falsehoods, and provides no evidence whatsoever from which the Court could evaluate those accusations.” ECF No. 116, PageID.1348. Plaintiff says only that she “mistakenly did

not attach [] exhibits” to her motion for sanctions and objects that she “has the right to amend” her motion to include that evidence. ECF No. 117, PageID.1349-50. It is hard to see how the Magistrate Judge could have made any other ruling on the facts and evidence available;

Plaintiff concedes that she provided no evidence at all in support of her motion. Nor – for that matter – did she provide any attachments to her objections.1 This court finds no error, let alone a clear one, and the

objection is therefore OVERRULED. As for Ajax’s request for all of Plaintiff’s filings to happen electronically and for sanctions against Plaintiff, the court DENIES

those requests without prejudice because in this court’s view, those were not properly added to a response to Davis-Harris’ objection and should be instead presented to the Magistrate Judge in the first

instance under the court’s referral of all pretrial matters. Defendant is thus free to bring an independent motion addressing those issues for the Magistrate Judge’s consideration in the normal course.

SO ORDERED. Date: November 17, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge

1 The undersigned has not received an “amended motion” in any capacity.