Jensen v. Unknown Parties 1 ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KIRK EDWIN JENSEN, Plaintiff, CASE No. 1:23-CV-749 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER UNKNOWN PARTIES #1, et al., Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No. p) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). 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 dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under the screening mechanism of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s objections fail to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the record and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Plaintiff’s claims. Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge. CONCLUSION ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 9) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $505 appellate filing fee under § 1915(b)(1); see McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997). Dated: A u g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 2 3 / s / R o b e r t J . J o n k e r ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2