Harris et al v. Makower Abbate Guerra Wegner Vollmer, PLLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JULIA DAVIS-HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAKOWER ABBATE GUERRA
WEGNER & VOLLMER, PLLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
Case No. 4:24-cv-11380
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
David R. Grand
United States Magistrate Judge
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
Case 4:24-cv-11380-FKB-DRG ECF No. 119, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
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
Case 4:24-cv-11380-FKB-DRG ECF No. 119, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
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.
Case 4:24-cv-11380-FKB-DRG ECF No. 119, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3