Opinion
23-12690
04-17-2024
EDWARDS S. WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs, v. STUART A. GOLD et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 31), (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION (Dkt. 38), AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Dkt. 26)
MARK A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. issued on February 26, 2024 (Dkt. 31). The issue before the magistrate judge was the motion for emergency injunctive relief filed by Plaintiffs Edward S. Williams and Camile V. Williams (Dkt. 26). Plaintiffs filed the motion in an attempt to stop the sale of real property located at 18405 Prairie St., Detroit, Michigan. See R&R at 1; Mot. at PageID.394. In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court deny the motion for emergency injunctive relief. R&R at 2-4. Plaintiffs filed an objection (Dkt. 38). No response was filed.
Dkt. 38 is labeled an “affidavit.” The Court nonetheless construes it as an objection.
The Court has considered Plaintiffs' objection and finds it to be without merit. 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).
Plaintiffs' objection consists of one sentence restating the request presented in their motion. See Obj. It does not respond to the R&R or identify any mistake in the R&R's reasoning; therefore, it does not constitute a valid objection to the R&R. The Court has reviewed the R&R and has determined that its recommendation is appropriate.
For these reasons, the Court: (i) adopts the recommendation in the R&R, (ii) overrules Plaintiffs' objection, and (iii) denies Plaintiffs' motion for emergency injunctive relief.
SO ORDERED.