Robinson #341328 v. Burnham et al

Filing 53

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 50 ; DENYING Def's Motion for Summary Judgment 34 ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (elam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,

CASE No. 1:23-CV-431

v.
KANDY BURNHAM and LORI BLUE,

HON. ROBERT J. JONKER

Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States
Magistrate Judge in this action (ECF No. 50) and Defendants’ Objection to it.
52).

(ECF Nos. 51,

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 Defendants’ objections.

After its review, the Court finds

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 34) which seeks summary judgment on the basis of exhaustion.

In their objections,

Defendants primarily reiterate and expand upon arguments presented in their original brief.
objections fail to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Their

The Magistrate

Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the governing
law.

The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the law regarding exhaustion.

Even if Defendants

are right that there are good reasons for a policy requiring a direct request to the facility’s warden
for a plaintiff to avail him or herself of the grievance policy set out at P.D. 03.02.130 ¶N, that is
not the policy in effect, as the Magistrate Judge accurately concluded.

Nothing in Defendants’

Objections changes the fundamental analysis.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 50) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Basis of Exhaustion (ECF No. 34) is DENIED.

Dated:

November 25, 2024

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

2