Gordon 308075 v. Bowne

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEONTAE J. GORDON, #308075, ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:22-cv-736 v. ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney RYAN BOWNE, , ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Deontae Gordon’s objection to the August 5, 2025 report and recommendation. (ECF No. 62). Judge Kent issued a report and recommendation (ECF No. 61) that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) be granted, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) be denied, and that this suit be terminated. The court will adopt the report and recommendation over Plaintiff’s objection. I. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his civil rights in taking retaliatory actions against him for exercising his constitutional rights during his incarceration. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has remaining claims against Defendants Bowne, Horne, Williams, and two unidentified individuals. The report and recommendation recommends that summary judgment be granted to the named Defendants and that Plaintiff’s claims against the unknown individuals be dismissed without prejudice. It also recommends that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment be denied and that the suit be terminated. II. After being served with a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. , 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). An “objection does not oblige the district court to ignore the report and

recommendation.” , 465 F. App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). Our Local Rules require any party objecting to a report and recommendation to “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b); , 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that “objections disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . .

believed [to be] in error” are too general). III. Plaintiff raises two objections: first, that the evidence is insufficient to negate the causation element as to Defendants Bowne and Williams, and second, that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to Defendant Williams’ decision-making capacity. (ECF No. 62).

The court rejects both. The record, as discussed in the report and recommendation, leaves no genuine dispute of material fact related to either issue. IV. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 61) is ADOPTED by the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to the report and recommendation (ECF No. 62) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 27, 2025 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge