Jones #168654 v. Jackson

Filing 58

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 57 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM ANTHONY JONES,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1338
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
JACK KOWALSKI,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
The Sixth Circuit remanded this matter for the sole purpose of conducting “a factual inquiry
into whether [Petitioner] Jones submitted a timely notice of appeal. Jones v. Burt, Case No. 201696, Order at 2 (6th Cir. Sept. 23, 2020). The matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge
Green’s Proposed Findings of Fact (ECF No. 56) and Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 57). The
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court adopt the proposed findings of fact and determine
that Petitioner Jones failed to timely submit a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 56, PageID.4018.)
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where a party has objected to portions of a
Magistrate Judge’s 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
Proposed Findings of Fact; and Petitioner’s Objections. After de novo review, the Court finds that
the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact are correct and that Petitioner failed to timely
submit a notice of appeal.
The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the
parties’ arguments, and the governing law. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the Proposed
Findings of Fact in any persuasive way. The objections primarily reiterate Plaintiff’s factual
allegations and amplify arguments Plaintiff has already made and the Magistrate Judge properly
addressed. The Court’s de novo review of the record confirms the accuracy of the Magistrate
Judge’s Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner Jones failed to timely submit a notice of appeal, just
as the Magistrate Judge detailed.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
The Proposed Findings of Fact (ECF No. 56) are APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the
Findings of Fact of the Court. The Court finds that Petitioner failed to submit a timely notice of
appeal.

Dated:

October 4, 2021

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