Tucker #132271 v. Wener et al

Filing 86

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 32 , 59 , 80 , 61 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

L.T. TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 2:18-CV-20
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
AARON WENER, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Greeley’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 80), Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 81), and Defendants’ Responses (ECF Nos.
84, 85). 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

Report and Recommendation itself; Plaintiff’s Objections; and Defendants’ Responses. The Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends denying Plaintiff’s
motions for summary judgment on the federal claims (ECF Nos. 32, 61) and granting the defense
motions for summary judgment on the federal claims (ECF Nos. 45, 59) factually sound and legally
correct.
The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the
parties’ arguments, and the governing law. Plaintiff’s objections do not address the Report and
Recommendation in a persuasive way. Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge applied erroneous
legal standards and made improper credibility determinations. Plaintiff is simply mistaken. The
Magistrate Judge accurately stated and applied the law. To the extent Plaintiff argues that he did
not admit the underlying conduct that led to the misconduct ticket, the record belies the claim.
Plaintiff himself acknowledges that when instructed to perform a task at work, he responded by
stating “I aint [sic] going to be your slave, you are on some bullshit.” (ECF No. 33, PageID.265.)
None of Plaintiff’s objections change the fundamental analysis. Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment in their favor, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation details.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 80) is

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

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 45 and 59) are

GRANTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 32 and 61) are DENIED.

4.

For the same reasons that the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims, the Court discerns

no good-faith basis for an appeal within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v.

2

Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199 (2007)).

Dated:

March 27, 2019

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

3