Jones #146246 v. Washington et al

Filing 135

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 130 ; Defendant Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgment 112 is granted; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 127 is denied; the Court discerns no good-faith basis for appeal ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY DARNELL JONES,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:17-CV-406
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 130) and Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 134). 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 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
Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff’s Objections. The Court finds the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends granting Defendant Johnson’s motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 112) and denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 127), factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the
parties’ arguments, and the governing law. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the Report and
Recommendation in a persuasive way. None of Plaintiff’s objections change the fundamental
analysis in this matter. Summary judgment in favor of Defendant Johnson, and against Plaintiff
Jones, is proper for all the reasons the Report and Recommendation details.
The Court notes that it has viewed the security video of the incident about which Plaintiff
complains.1 The security video further undercuts Plaintiff’s factual allegations and supports the
defense position. In Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 327 (2007), the Court ruled that in considering a
motion for summary judgment in the context of an excessive force claim, a court should “view[]
the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Harris, 550 U.S. at 380-81. The Court emphasized
that “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by
the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the
facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 380. Nothing about the video
supports a finding that defendants “maliciously and sadistically used force to cause harm” to
Plaintiff. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 US 34, 37-38 (describing the “core judicial inquiry” as
“whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously
and sadistically to cause harm.”).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

1

The Magistrate Judge did not consider the security video in his decision, finding the video insufficiently
authenticated to be considered admissible evidence at this stage of the case. (ECF No. 130, PageID.1677.) With or
without the video, the record amply supports the ruling in favor of Defendant Johnson and against Plaintiff the
Magistrate Judge recommends.

2

1.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 130) is

APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2.

Defendant Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 112) is

GRANTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 127) is DENIED.

4.

For the same reasons that the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims, the Court discerns

no good-faith basis for an appeal within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007)).

Dated:

March 19, 2020

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

3