King v. Borgess Lee Memorial Hospital et al

Filing 62

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 55 ; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 38 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

CYNTHIA KING,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-397

v

HON. JANET T. NEFF

BORGESS LEE MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Cynthia King initiated the present action against Defendants Borgess Lee Memorial
Hospital and Season Marinich, alleging religious discrimination under state and federal law.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Dkt 38), which was referred to the Magistrate
Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R), recommending that this Court grant
Defendants’ motion. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report
and Recommendation (Dkt 56). Defendants have filed a response (Dkt 59). In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court
denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff’s objections fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis or conclusion, let alone identify any portions of the report and recommendation to which
she objects. Instead, among numerous conclusory allegations of injustice, Plaintiff merely states that
summary judgment is not appropriate, opining that “[i]t is obvious that [the Magistrate Judge] cannot

make that call, because he, nor anyone else, knows what materials we mean to present in an open
due court”(emphases in original) (Dkt 56 at 3).
Plaintiff seemingly misunderstands the meaning of the phrase “material fact” in the summary
judgment context. A fact is “material” for purposes of summary judgment “if proof of that fact
would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or a
defense advanced by the parties.” Westfield Ins. Co. v. Enterprise 522, LLC, 34 F. Supp. 3d 737,
743 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (citing Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984)). Plaintiff
has not identified any genuine issue of material fact, nor has she provided any other reason for this
Court to reject the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants summary judgment.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court. Further, as all claims are now resolved, a Judgment will be entered consistent
with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of the Judgment
would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 56) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 55) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 38)
is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that
an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

26
Dated: February ___, 2015

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

3