UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JERRY DAVID HILL, a legally incapacitated

person and JOHN YUN, legal guardian of

JERRY DAVID HILL,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 14-12840

Honorable Denise Page Hood 

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND

SURETY COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING MOTION TO 

INTERVENE [#9]

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s

Report and Recommendation on Cardinal Referral Network, LLC; TBI Villas of 

Troy, LLC; and TBI Management, LLC’s (“Intervening Parties”) Motion to 

Intervene [Docket No. 9, filed January 22, 2015]. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant 

filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. For the 

reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation in its entirety. The Intervening Parties’ Motion to Intervene

[Docket No. 6, filed December 5, 2014] is GRANTED. 

2:14-cv-12840-DPH-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 75
2

The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 

Id. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be timely and specific. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981) (“The filing of objections provides the district 

court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to 

correct any errors immediately.”) 

“[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the 

district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but 

failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” Smith 

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). “An 

‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s 

suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is” 

insufficient. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A 

party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal, see 

Smith, 829 F.2d at 1373, and relieves the Court from its duty to review the matter 

independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

2:14-cv-12840-DPH-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 76
3

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the 

Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. The 

Intervening Parties seek to intervene since the medical care and services they 

provided to Plaintiff Jerry Hill are valued at more than $400,000 and the 

Intervening Parties assert that Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company 

is required to compensate them, even though it has refused to pay thus far. 

Plaintiff’s failure to recover will result in the Intervening Parties also failing to 

recover the cost of the services provided. 

The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge also notified the parties of their 

right to “seek review of this Report and Recommendation” and reminded them of 

the timeline in which to do so. As previously stated, neither Plaintiff nor 

Defendants have filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s January 22, 2015, 

Report and Recommendation. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand [Docket No. 9, filed January 22, 2015] is 

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Intervening Parties’ Motion to 

Intervene [Docket No. 6, filed December 5, 2014] is GRANTED.

2:14-cv-12840-DPH-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 77
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is referred back to Magistrate 

Judge David R. Grand for any additional discovery disputes, including the 

extension of discovery to accommodate intervention if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: May 28, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of 

record on May 28, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:14-cv-12840-DPH-DRG Doc # 12 Filed 05/28/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 78