Henley #246521 v. Miller et al

Filing 33

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 29 , 19 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWIGHT MORROW HENLEY,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-538
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
C. MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Brenneman’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (docket # 29), Plaintiff Henley’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (docket
# 30), and Defendants’ Response (docket # 31). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where,
as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . .
. has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he
or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT , MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §
3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo
determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any
portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written
objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision,
receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
FED R. CIV . P. 72(b). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).

The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Report and Recommendation itself; Plaintiff's objections; and Defendants’ Response. After its
review, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Brenneman’s Report and Recommendation is
factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the
parties’ arguments, and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Mr. Henley’s
claims. Nothing in Mr. Henley’s objections persuades the Court otherwise. The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that there exist no genuine issues as to material facts and that
Defendants are entitled to the relief they seek, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation
delineates.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (docket # 29) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket
# 19) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action,
the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997).
This case is DISMISSED.

/s/Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 28, 2013