Chambers v. Grand Haven, City of

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY CHAMBERS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:22-cv-1125 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER GRAND HAVEN, CITY OF, et al.

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 44), and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 45). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when a party objects 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 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2 (3d ed. June 2024 update). 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., Inc., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge. After its review, the Court finds that Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct. Magistrate Judge Green recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 40), because Defendants City of Grand Haven and Grand Haven Police

Department are municipalities and Plaintiff’s pleadings do not set forth a municipal policy or practice that caused Plaintiffs’ rights to be violated, (ECF No. 44, PageID.178-179). Plaintiff does not contest this point in objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Instead, Plaintiff argues that he named an individual officer of the Grand Haven Police Department as a defendant in his “supplemental complaint.” (ECF No. 45, PageID.180). But Plaintiff never moved this Court for leave to amend his complaint to add new defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff’s objection therefore fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF

No. 44) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate Judgment will enter.

Dated: March 26, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE