Opinion
Case No. C-1-98-839
July 16, 2003
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judge Beckwith's Order dated August 14, 2001 (Doc. 121), Mag. Judge Timothy S. Hogan's Report and Recommendation and Order (Doc. 122), Defendant Donald F. Forrester's objection to Judge Hogan's Report and Recommendation and Order (Doc. 123), and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the objection to Judge Hogan's Report and Recommendation and Order. (Doc. 124). For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judge Beckwith's August 14, 2001 Order is GRANTED, Judge Hogan's Report and Recommendation and Order of December 17, 2002 is ADOPTED, Defendant Donald F. Forrester's objection is OVERRULED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
The United States filed a complaint against the defendants to reduce to judgment Donald F. Forrester's outstanding unpaid liability for federal internal revenue taxes. Doc. 107. The United States seeks to foreclose federal tax liens on the equitable interest of Donald H. Forrester in the property located at 17 Wildwood Drive, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, and to conduct a judicial sale of that property. Id. The United States filed a motion for summary judgment as a matter of law on August 15, 2000. Doc. 66. The motion was partially granted and partially denied. Doc. 86. However, Judge Hogan's recommendation inadvertently entered judgment for the income tax liabilities for the year of 1991 instead of the income tax liabilities for the year of 1981. Doc. 101. On October 9, 2001, a Fourth Amended Complaint was filed by the United States. Doc. 107. Subsequently, the parties agreed to a settlement amount in the case. Doc. 119. However, the parties have failed to agree to the form of the stipulated judgment. Id. On May 31, 2002, the United States filed a Motion to Amend the Order of the Court dated August 14, 2001 to correct a clerical error in the Order. Doc. 121. Subsequently, Judge Hogan issued a Recommendation and Report and Order which stated the year entered on the August 14, 2001 order mistakenly stated 1991 when it should have read 1981. Doc. 122. Judge Hogan recommended that the order be changed to reflect the correct year. Id. On January 2, 2003, Donald F. Forrester filed an objection to Judge Hogan's recommendation. Doc. 123. In response to the objection, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the objection and made a request for a hearing to enforce the settlement agreement. Doc. 124. Myra H. Forrester and Bruce Forrester, Trustee, filed a response to the Motion to Strike the objection stating that they no longer want to be a part of the proceedings and request their participation in the settlement conference be by telephone, if at all. Doc. 125.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Congress promulgated 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts by permitting the assignment of certain duties to magistrates. See Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989) (reviewing legislative history of § 636). Section 636(b) creates two different standards of review for district courts when a magistrate judge's order is challenged in district court. A district court shall apply a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review for the "nondispositive" preliminary matters of § 636(b)(1)(A). United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980). Conversely, "dispositive motions" excepted from § 636(b) (1)(A), such as motions for summary judgment or for the suppression of evidence, are governed by the de novo standard. See id. at 674.
ANALYSIS
The error made in the August 14, 2001 Order was clerical. Upon examination of the record, the tax year in question was clearly 1981. Rule 60(a) is applied when clerical errors are made in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(a). Rule 60(a) states that errors arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party. Id. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS Judge Hogan's Recommendation and Report and Order. The order of August 14, 2001 is hereby amended to reflect that the tax year in question is 1981 instead of 1991. All other sections of the August 14, 2001 Order shall remain in full force and effect. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the August 14, 2001 order is GRANTED.
Defendant Donald F. Forrester filed an objection to the recommendation made by Judge Hogan. However, the Defendant failed to follow the instructions of the Court. The Notice sent with the December 16, 2002 Order states any party who objects to the Magistrate Judge's findings shall file a written motion to review which shall specifically identify the portions of the finding, recommendations, or report to which the objection is made along with a memorandum of law setting forth the basis for such objection. The Defendant's objection states,
"Now comes Defendant, Donald F. Forrester, by and through his attorney, to object to Magistrate Hogan's Recommendation and Report and Order of December 16, 2002 (Document 122). Wherein the parties have previously not objected to the Order of August 13, 2001 (Document 106), which the parties have waived any further objections to."
The Defendant fails to specifically identify the portion of the Order to which the objection is made and he fails to support the objection with a memorandum citing facts or law that would establish grounds for reversal. The Court will not guess as to why the Defendant objects to the Report and Recommendation and Order. Therefore, the objection is insufficient to establish reversible error. The Defendant's objection is without merit and is OVERRULED. The Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the objection made to the Recommendation and Report and Order is well-taken and is GRANTED.
This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Hogan to hold a settlement conference with the parties.