Evans #367619 et al v. Prisk et al

Filing 111

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 107 , 94 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARELIO EVANS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:17-CV-46
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
THOMAS PRISK, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATOIN
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Greeley’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 107) and Defendants’ Objections (ECF No. 109).1 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

1

Plaintiff has not filed an objection, and the period for objection has expired.

Report and Recommendation itself; and Defendants’ Objections. The Court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as
to Plaintiff’s RLUIPA, First Amendment, and conspiracy claims, and denying the motion as to
Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim. The Magistrate Judge points out that Defendants’ motion fails
to address Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim that Defendants have failed to apply the Policy
Directive 05.03.150(V) equally to each religion. In their Objections, Defendants reiterate their
arguments that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim subsumes his Equal Protection claim and that
Plaintiff has failed to show intentional discrimination. The Magistrate Judge properly rejected
both arguments. Plaintiff asserts a stand-alone Equal Protection claim that Defendants have failed
to apply the policy equally to each religion. At the summary judgment stage, Defendants must
address Plaintiff’s factual claim that they allowed group services for less than five practitioners of
other religions. Defendants’ bald assertion that Plaintiff has not shown intentional discrimination
does not meaningfully address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim and is not enough to support summary
judgment.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 107) is

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

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED as to

Plaintiff’s RLUIPA, First Amendment, and conspiracy claims, and is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s
Equal Protection claim.
Dated:

August 6, 2018

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

2