Nicklay v. Hoogstra et al
Filing
33
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 27 ; Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice; the Court finds no good-faith basis for appeal; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION
ROBERT STEVEN NICKLAY, P l a in t i f f , v. E LIZA B E T H HOOGSTRA, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . / O R D E R AND JUDGMENT A P P R O V I N G REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION T h e Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (docket # 27), Plaintiff's Objections (docket # 30) and all other pertinent matters of record. Under the Fe d e ra l Rules of Civil Procedure, when a party has objected to portions of a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , "[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge's re c o m m e n d a tio n unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified." 12 WRIGHT, M ILLE R , & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997). S p e c ific a lly, the Rules provide that: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the m a gis tra te judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. T h e district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended d is p o sitio n ; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the m a g is tr a te judge with instructions. FE D R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the e vid e n c e before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1 9 8 1 ). T h e Report and Recommendation concludes that both defendants are indisputably e n title d to immunity. In particular, the Report and Recommendation concludes that Defendant C a s e No. 1:08-CV-328 H o n . Robert J. Jonker
C h ie f Probation Officer Hoogstra is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for any alleged errors in p r e p a r a tio n of a pre-sentence report involving Plaintiff, and that Defendant 56-A District Court is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Court has reviewed de novo the c la im s and evidence presented to Magistrate Judge Brenneman; the Report and
R e c o m m e n d a tio n itself; and Plaintiff's objections. After its review, the Court finds Magistrate J u d ge Brenneman's Report and Recommendation to be both factually sound and legally correct. P l a in tif f' s only objection to the Report and Recommendation is that Defendant Hoogstra is not immune because she allegedly failed to interview him face-to-face for the pre-sentence re p o rt, and because she allegedly included false information in the report. These objections do n o t undercut the quasi-judicial immunity to which Defendant Hoogstra is entitled in preparing a p re -se n te n c e report. The Report and Recommendation recites the authority establishing this im m u n ity and nothing in Plaintiff's objections even addresses this authority. Plaintiff does not d ire c tly contest the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the 56-A District Court of the State of M ic h iga n is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and the Court discerns no b a s is for any proper objection to application of sovereign immunity in any event. A C C O R D I N G L Y , IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the M a g is tr a te Judge is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH P R E J U D I C E under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) on grounds of immunity. The Court finds no g o o d -f a ith basis for appeal within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
D a te d :
September 3, 2008
/s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?