Betty #247284 v. Heyns et al

Filing 32

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 27 ; Plaintiff's motion for extension of time for service is denied 17 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

QUENTIN D. BETTY,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:15-cv-445
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
DANIEL H. HEYNS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (docket # 27)
recommending a denial of Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve. Plaintiff filed objections
(docket # 28). 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:
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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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). After de novo review in this case, the Court concludes that the Report

and Recommendation is legally sound and factually correct, and the Court therefore adopts it as its
decision.
The Plaintiff’s Complaint names three unknown defendants (docket # 1, PageID.1). Plaintiff
went through grievance procedures in the Michigan Department of Corrections that could have
allowed Plaintiff to identify the unknown individuals involved in a timely manner. The Magistrate
Judge went through the matter in detail in the Report and Recommendation (docket # 27,
PageID.220-221). Plaintiff’s objections I and II both essentially argue that the Court should find that
good cause exists for an exception to the applicable procedural rules. The Court declines, and instead
agrees with the findings in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s objection III claims error in
the standard of review, which the Court does not find to be consistent with the law. All three
objections are overruled.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is approved and adopted as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time for service (docket # 17) is DENIED.

Dated:

February 22, 2016

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