Ackerman v. United States Department of Agriculture ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION ACKERMAN BROTHERS FARMS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:17-cv-11779 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al., Honorable Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge Defendants. __________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Plaintiffs filed this class action under the Administrative Procedure Act for all dry-bean farmers in Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota who purchased Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement crop insurance from Defendants in 2015. ECF No. 1. Now before this Court is Defendants’ Objection, ECF No. 151, to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, ECF No. 143, be granted in part and that Plaintiffs be awarded $133,092.50, see ECF No. 150 at PageID.18323. When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the court must review de novo those portions of it to which the party has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). To that end, the court must review at least the evidence that was before the magistrate judge. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3); Peek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 585 F.Supp.3d 1014, 1017–18 (E.D. Mich. 2021). The court may adopt the report without specifying what it reviewed. See Abousamra v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-CV-12918, 2023 WL 1997068, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 14, 2023) (citations omitted). This Court has reviewed Judge Morris’s Report, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, ECF No. 143, Defendants’ Response, ECF No. 146, Plaintiffs’ Reply, ECF No. 147, Defendants’ Objection, ECF No. 151, and all other applicable filings. Having conducted this de novo review, this Court concludes that Judge Morris’s factual conclusions are correct and that her legal reasoning is sound. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Objection, ECF No. 151, is OVERRULED. Further, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 150, is ADOPTED. Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, ECF No. 143, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks $133,092.50 in fees and costs; it is DENIED in all other regards. This is a final order. Dated: June 29, 2023 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge