Rivera #239567 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 93 ; Defendants White and Stephens's Motion for Summary Judgment 77 is granted; Plaintiff's claim against the Chaplain Advisory Council is dismissed for lack of prosecution; this action is terminated; the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-214
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation in this matter
(ECF No. 93) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 98). 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:
[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 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; and Plaintiff's objections. After its review, the Court finds that
Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants White and Stephens’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 77); dismissing Plaintiff’s claim against the Chaplain Advisory
Council for lack of prosecution; and terminating this action. (ECF No. 93.) In his Objections,
Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands arguments he presented in his motion papers. The Report
and Recommendation already carefully, thoroughly, and accurately addresses these arguments.
Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineates.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 93) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants White and Stephens’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim against the Chaplain Advisory Council
is DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
This action is TERMINATED.
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).
August 14, 2017
/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?