Meyer #395742 v. Natole et al

Filing 444

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 440 , 387 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

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 in this
matter (ECF No. 440), Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 441), and Defendant Flentje’s Response
(ECF No. 442). 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; Plaintiff’s objections; and Defendants’ response. The Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends granting

summary judgment in favor of Defendant Gregory Flentje, M.D., factually sound and legally
correct.
Plaintiff objects on several grounds, none of which is persuasive. Plaintiff contends that
findings in an earlier Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 237, PageID.3103) contradict the
Report and Recommendation now before the Court. This objection fails. The earlier decision
centers on a different timeframe and set of issues, and Plaintiff over-reads the findings of the
Report and Recommendation now before the Court.

Plaintiff’s other objections express

disagreement and frustration, but nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes the fundamental
analysis.

Defendant Flentje is entitled to summary judgment in his favor as to Plaintiff’s

remaining claims alleged in Counts 66, 68, 68, 71, and 72, for precisely the reasons delineated in
the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 440).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is APPROVED AND

ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2.

Defendant Flentje’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 387) is GRANTED

as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims alleged in Counts 66, 68, 69, 71, and 72.
3.

For the same reasons that the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims, 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) (overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007)).
This case is TERMINATED.
Dated:

March 27, 2018

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