From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniel v. DTE Energy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 29, 2012
Case No: 11-13141 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2012)

Opinion

Case No: 11-13141

08-29-2012

ROCHELLE DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. DTE ENERGY, Defendant.


Honorable Victoria A. Roberts


ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Paul Komives' Order Denying Plaintiff's January 30, 2012 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions and Denying Plaintiff's April 2, 2012 Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Edward W. Peart.

Plaintiff says the Magistrate Judge erred by not striking the affidavit of Edward Peart. Her position is that Defendant submitted contradictory affidavits on different occasions.

The Court will reverse a Magistrate's ruling on a pretrial, non-dispositive motion only if the decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The clearly erroneous standard applies to factual findings made by the Magistrate; his legal conclusions are reviewed under the "contrary to law" standard. Gandee v Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff'd, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. Mar. 14, 1994)(Table). A finding is clearly erroneous when, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is ... left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake as been committed." Robinson v Allstate, Ins. Co., No. 09-10341, 2011 WL 3111947, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 26, 2011) (quoting United States v United States Gypsum Co., 330 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). "If more than one permissible view of the evidence exists, the Magistrate's decision cannot be clearly erroneous." Id. (citing Anderson v City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985)). A legal conclusion that fails to apply or misapplies case law, statutes, or procedural rules is "contrary to law." This standard requires the Court to use independent judgment. Id.

The Court carefully and thoroughly reviewed the record; the Magistrate's decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

The Court REJECTS the Plaintiff's objection and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Order.

IT IS ORDERED.

_______________

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record and Rochelle Daniel by electronic means or U.S. Mail on August 29, 2012.

Linda Vertnest

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Daniel v. DTE Energy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 29, 2012
Case No: 11-13141 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Daniel v. DTE Energy

Case Details

Full title:ROCHELLE DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. DTE ENERGY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 29, 2012

Citations

Case No: 11-13141 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2012)

Citing Cases

West v. Ann Arbor Hous. Comm'n

A decision is contrary to law if it "fails to apply or misapplies case law, statutes, or procedural rules."…

United States v. Cox

Curtis, 237 F.3d at 602. A finding is clearly erroneous when “although there is evidence to support it, the…