Jackson v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

Filing 20

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 ; Plaintiff's request to amend the Complaint is denied; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 12 is granted; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELINDIA JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-461

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT

HON ROBERT J. JONKER

Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 18) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19).
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:
[t]he 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 Green’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying leave for Plaintiff to amend her complaint based
on futility, and granting defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). In her Objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands
arguments she presented in her 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, for the very
reasons the Report and Recommendation delineate.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 18) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s request to amend the Complaint is DENIED.

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 12)
is GRANTED.

This case is DISMISSED.

Dated:

September 18, 2017

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

2