Valencia v. Worker's Compensation

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 ; Request for interpreter 7 is DENIED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CRISTELA VALENCIA,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:18-cv-45
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
WORKER’S COMPENSATION,
Defendant.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se objections to a January 22,
2018 Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by the Magistrate Judge, recommending that the
action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a
claim. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has
performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff’s objections demonstrate her general dissatisfaction with the recommended result
in this case, but they do not reference, let alone demonstrate error in, the Magistrate Judge’s
jurisdictional analysis.

See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b) (requiring an objecting party to

“specifically identify the portions of the … recommendations or report to which objections are
made and the basis for such objections”). The Court discerns no basis upon which to reject the
Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief could be granted in federal court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections, as well as her request therein for an interpreter, are
properly denied, and a Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 58. For the above reasons and because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this
Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment would not
be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997),
overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007). Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 7, 8) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED
as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

Dated: February 12, 2018

2