Jenkins v. McHugh
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 33 , Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 13 is GRANTED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AARON S. JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:11-cv-949
v
HON. JANET T. NEFF
JOHN M. MCHUGH,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jenkins, a soldier in the United States Army Reserve, initiated the present action,
seeking to have a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) removed from his personnel file. Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, and the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. Defendant McHugh, Secretary of the
Army, moved for summary judgment, and the Magistrate Judge held a motion hearing on May 31,
2012. After consideration of both the oral and written arguments, the Magistrate issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss
Plaintiff’s action (Dkt 33). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation (Dkts 37, 38), to which Defendant filed a response (Dkt 40).
When objections are received to a magistrate judge’s report on a dispositive matter, the
district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The local rules of
this Court require that the objecting party “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings,
recommendations or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D.
Mich. LCivR 72.3(b).
While a pro se litigant’s objections should be liberally construed by the Court, see Boswell v.
Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999), Plaintiff’s objections wholly fail to reference the Report
and Recommendation, let alone state a valid objection to it. Plaintiff’s mere dissatisfaction with the
recommended result, without any explanation as to how the Magistrate Judge might have erred in
applying the pertinent legal standards or evaluating the decision of the Army Board for Correction
of Military Records, cannot serve as a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkts 37, 38) are DENIED and the Report
and Recommendation (Dkt 33) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 13)
is GRANTED.
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
Dated: September ___, 2012
24
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?