Hamilton v. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “a district judge will not consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that could have been raised before the magistrate but were not”
• affirming over objection a recommendation to award the lower rate calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961
• “[O]bjections must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge’s proposal.”
• “[O]bjections must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge’s proposal.” (citing McDonaugh v. Astrue, 672 F. Supp. 2d 542, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2009))
• “[O]bjections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review.”
• “[O]bjections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).