Shaffer v. St. Joseph, County of et al

Filing 68

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 57 , Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 53 is DENIED; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (elam)

Case 1:22-cv-00564-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 68, PageID.203 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALONZO SHAFFER,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-564
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
UNKNOWN KINDIG, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The matter before the Court is Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 57) on Plaintiff Alonzo Shaffer’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 53). The
Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 57) and
Plaintiff’s Objections. (ECF No. 58). 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).
1

Case 1:22-cv-00564-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 68, PageID.204 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3

The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Report and Recommendation itself; and Defendants’ objections. The Court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 53), factually sound and legally correct.
ANALYSIS
As set out in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff sued Berrien County, St. Joseph
County, the St. Joseph County Sheriff Department, and two correctional officers, Unknown Kindig
and Unknown Mahoney. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff subsequently amended his Complaint, foregoing
his claims against Berrien County. (ECF No. 5). The Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims
except for his use of excessive force claims against Defendants Kindig and Mahoney on August
19, 2022. (ECF Nos. 8-9). Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment, which the Magistrate
recommends the Court deny.
Plaintiff has filed a cursory objection comprised of a single sentence, asserting that he
objects to “any all part Of Report & Recommendation that is not In I Plaintiff Shaffer Favor [sic].”
(ECF No. 58, PageID.188). This objection does not meaningfully respond to the Magistrate
Judge’s reasoning, nor does it raise any specific objection to the Report and Recommendation. An
objection which is not “clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issue that are
dispositive and contentious,” is insufficient to permit review of the magistrate judge’s report.
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). Thus, a “general objection to a magistrate’s
report, which fails to specific the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an
objection be filed” to merit de novo review. Id. Plaintiff’s Objection clearly fails to meet this
standard.
2

Case 1:22-cv-00564-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 68, PageID.205 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3

To the extent that the Court needs to reach Plaintiff’s general objection that the Magistrate
Judge reached the incorrect conclusion in the Report and Recommendation, the Court disagrees
with Plaintiff. As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is a single
page – in fact, it is appropriately construed as a single sentence. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff asserts
that he has presented “multiple exhibits of factual evidence to support” his motion, but fails to
identify that evidence. Plaintiff attaches no exhibits to his motion, nor does he endeavor to make
any substantive arguments. The Magistrate Judge is correct that Plaintiff has failed to establish
that he is entitled to the relief he seeks.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 57) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
53) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 18, 2023
DATED:__________________

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

3