Odom #161794 v. Hill et al

Filing 157

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 151 ; ORDER GRANTING Motion for Summary Judgment 141 , ORDER GRANTING Motion for Summary Judgment 124 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (elam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN ODOM,
Plaintiff,

CASE No. 1:21-cv-403

v.

HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

E. COE HILL, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
151) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 155). 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:
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. After its review, the Court finds
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ Quellette and Hill’s respective
Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 124, 141). In his objections, Plaintiff primarily
reiterates and expands upon arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge.

The

Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Plaintiff’s claims. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes
the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees that the defense motions should be granted for the
very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 151) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Quellette’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 124) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Hill’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 141) is GRANTED.
This case is CLOSED. A separate Judgment shall issue.

Dated:

January 29, 2025

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

2