Love #304167 v. Mosley et al
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 120 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 93 is denied; Defendant Mosley's motion for summary judgment 97 is denied ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ROBERT ORLANDO LOVE,
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-281
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
SHANIEKA DEVONNE MOSLEY
and DAVID SHARP,
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation in this matter
(ECF No. 120) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 121).
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 denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (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 and
conclusion that there remain genuine issues of material fact of whether the complained of conduct
rose to the level of a federal constitutional violation. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineate, that Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment should be denied.
The Magistrate Judge also recommends striking or denying Defendant Mosley’s motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 97). Defendants have not filed any objections. In light of the
current record, and the absence of any continuing objections from Plaintiff, the Court declines to
strike the documents identified in the Report and Recommendation but agrees, for the reasons
recited by the Magistrate, that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 120) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 93)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Mosley’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 97) is DENIED.
September 18, 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?