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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?