Sifuentes v. Automotive, No. 1:23-cv-904 (2025)

Case details
Full caption
David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
Maloney (Justice)
DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES, III, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 3100998Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, W.D.Michigan, Southern Division.DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES, III, Plaintiff,v.CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AUTOMOTIVE, Defendant.No. 1:23-cv-904|11/06/2025Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Paul L. Maloney, United States District JudgeORDER ADOPTING REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION*1 This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate JudgeKent's Report and Recommendation (R&R). (ECF No. 42). Inthe R&R, Magistrate Judge Kent recommended that Plaintiff'smotions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, (ECF Nos.39, 40), be denied. Plaintiff filed objections. (ECF No. 45).Plaintiff did not object to any of the substance of the R&R andinstead raised a meritless argument about magistrate judgejurisdiction he “has repeatedly raised, and lost on” here andin other courts. Sifuentes v. Twitter Inc., No. 1:23-cv-981,2025 WL 294259, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2025); see, e.g.,Sifuentes v. Midland Cnty. 42nd Cir. Ct., 1:20-cv-11745, 2024WL 5166637, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 25, 2024). The objectionis overruled and the R&R will be adopted in full.I.After being served with a report and recommendation issuedby a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file writtenobjections to the proposed findings and recommendations.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A districtcourt judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R towhich objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specificare entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v.Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).An “objection does not oblige the district court to ignorethe report and recommendation.” Fharmacy Recs. v. Nassar,465 F. App'x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). Our Local Rulesrequire any party objecting to a report and recommendationto “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings,recommendations or report to which objections are made andthe basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b);see also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)(holding that “objections disput[ing] the correctness of themagistrate's recommendation but fail[ing] to specify thefindings...believed [to be] in error” are too general).II. This is the third time that the Courtmust reject the same argument in thiscase alone.1As explained in an earlier order, (ECF No. 44), the Courtdenied Plaintiff's motion to vacate the Court's prior judgment,(ECF No. 37). The basis for that motion was that Plaintiffwas not “given the option to consent to the jurisdiction ofthe magistrate judge.” (Id.; see ECF No. 36). This optiononly needs to be given to parties when a magistrate judgewould conduct all proceedings of a case under 28 U.S.C. §636(c); the obligation to provide notice arises only “[i]f amagistrate judge is designated to exercise civil jurisdictionunder paragraph (1) of this subsection.” See also Fed.R. Civ. P. 73 (providing that notice be given “[w]hen amagistrate judge has been designated to conduct civil actionsor proceedings” under the rule*2 implementing the consent jurisdiction rules of § 636(c)).The rules regarding mandatory notice in consent proceedings,where the magistrate judge would do everything, areirrelevant when the magistrate judge acts under the separateauthority conferred in § 636(b). That section of the statuteprovides that district judges may refer pretrial matters tomagistrate judges, and that parties may effectively appeal themagistrate judge's resolutions of those matters to the districtjudge. Section 636(b) does not require the parties’ consent,nor does it provide for any mechanism of offering or obtainingtheir consent. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (containing no rule
DAVID ANGEL SIFUENTES, III, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2related to offering or obtaining parties’ consent). This Court'slocal rules, similarly, distinguish between cases where theconsent of the parties is required under § 636(c), W.D. Mich.LCivR 73, and cases where the consent of the parties is notrequired, W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.The Court thus never needed consent from Plaintiff for theMagistrate Judge to do what he did in this case with regardto the R&R or anything else. Plaintiff was never entitled toreceive a consent form because the Magistrate Judge wasnot designated under § 636(c). The sole basis for Plaintiff'sobjections was his non-receipt of a consent form he was neverentitled to receive, and Plaintiff cites no authority implyingthat a consent form must be given in every case, includingthose where it is not relevant. The objection is overruled.The R&R (ECF No. 42) was properly issued and isADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiff's motions for leave to appealin forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 39, 40) are DENIED. IT IS SOORDERED.Date: November 6, 2025 /s/ Paul L. MaloneyPaul L. MaloneyUnited States District JudgeAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 3100998Footnotes1To illustrate the degree to which nothing has changed about Plaintiff's argument, Plaintiff still relies on “Bolinv. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (6th Cir. 2000),” (ECF No. 45 at PageID.242), a nonexistent case the Courtalready warned Plaintiff did not exist, (ECF No. 37 at PageID.212-13).End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access