Summary
compiling cases rejecting this theory and finding argument that said international promissory notes are legal tender "is nonsense"
Summary of this case from English v. Ryland Mortg. Co.Opinion
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1310
08-31-2016
STEVEN L. MARVIN, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, Defendant.
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent's Report and Recommendation in this matter (ECF No. 34) and Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, "[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge's recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified." 12 WRIGHT, MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff's objections. After its review, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Kent's Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6). In his Objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands arguments he presented in his motion papers. The Report and Recommendation already carefully, thoroughly, and accurately addresses these arguments. Nothing in Plaintiff's Objections changes the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant is entitled to the relief it seeks, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineates.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 34) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.
This case is DISMISSED. Dated: August 31, 2016
/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE