Carter 262495 v. Jones

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAMAR ALEXANDER CARTER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-1348 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER KRISTEN JONES, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Vermaat’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) and Defendant NP Kuerth’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 27). 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 denying both Defendant Jones’s motion for summary judgment and Defendant NP Kuerth’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (ECF No. 26). Only Defendant NP Kuerth objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. She first argues

that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim because he does not allege facts that plausibly amount to deliberate indifference. She then argues that the Court should grant summary judgment because Plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. Defendant NP Kuerth’s objections primarily expand upon her original arguments. Her objections fail to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and the rules regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies and deliberate indifference. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Plaintiff’s claims. Nothing in Defendant’s Objections changes

the fundamental analysis, with which this court agrees. Defendant Jones has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation for denial of her motion for summary judgment. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 26) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jones’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) and Defendant NP Kuerth’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (ECF No. 11) are DENIED.

2 Dated: September 3, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE