Meyer #395742 v. Natole et al

Filing 252

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 228 ; Defendant Flentje's Motion to Set Aside Default 166 is GRANTED; Plaintiff's first and second Motions for Default Judgment 42 169 are DENIED ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JONATHAN KING MEYER,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-536
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
JOSEPH NATOLE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation dated January
25, 2016 (docket # 228) and Plaintiff Meyer’s Objections (docket # 230). 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 451 (3d ed. 2014).
Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The 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
with instructions.
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 Defendant Flentje’s Motion to Set Aside
Default (docket # 166) and denying Plaintiff’s first and second Motions for Default Judgment
against Defendant Flentje (docket ## 42, 169). The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly
considered the evidentiary record, the parties’ arguments, and the governing law. Plaintiff disagrees
with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, but nothing in his Objections changes the fundamental
analysis. The Court finds it appropriate to set aside the default against Defendant Flentje and to
deny Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment, for precisely the reasons the Report and
Recommendation details.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (docket # 228) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Flentje’s Motion to Set Aside Default
(docket # 166) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first and second Motions for Default
Judgment (docket ## 42, 169) are DENIED.

Dated:

March 23, 2016

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2