Hood v. Office of Personnel Management

Filing 50

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 38 ; Plaintiff Hood's motions to amend 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , and 24 are DENIED; Plaintiff Hood's motion for voluntary dismissal 31 is GRANTED to the extent it withdraws his prop osed amendments to the amended complaint; Plaintiff Hood's motions to transfer 32 and 35 are DENIED; Defendant Office of Personnel Management's motion to dismiss 28 is GRANTED; This case is DISMISSED; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JULIAN R. HOOD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:15-cv-609
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation in this matter
(docket # 38) and Plaintiff Hood’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (docket # 39).
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). 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: (1) denying Plaintiff’s motions to amend; (2) granting
Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal to the extent it withdraws his proposed amendments to
the amended complaint; (3) denying Plaintiff’s motions to transfer; and (4) granting Defendant’s
motion to dismiss. In his objections, Mr. Hood primarily reiterates and expands arguments made
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 conclusion that Defendant is entitled to the
relief it seeks, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineates.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (docket # 38) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Hood’s motions to amend (docket ## 13, 14,
15, 17, and 24) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Hood’s motion for voluntary dismissal (docket
# 31) is GRANTED to the extent it withdraws his proposed amendments to the amended
complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Hood’s motions to transfer (docket ## 32 and
35) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Office of Personnel Management’s motion
to dismiss (docket # 28) is GRANTED.
This case is DISMISSED.

Dated:

August 18, 2016

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2