Green v. Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Opinion

WUNESITTEEDR NST DAITSTERS IDCITS TORFI MCTIC CHOIUGRATN SOUTHERN DIVISION

STACIA GREEN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-378 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) filed on April 15, 2025. Plaintiff filed her Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) on April 29, 2025. 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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 Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court sua sponte dismiss without prejudice all claims because Defendants are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation. After de novo review, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the allegations and the governing law. As the Magistrate Judge points out, the Complaint Plaintiff originally filed is plainly subject to a screening dismissal based on the Eleventh Amendment. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and its Officer of Inspector General are immune from suit in this Court. Plaintiff’s objection does not address the Eleventh Amendment issue. In fact, Plaintiff’s

filing is more like a new case with different defendants pursuing a different theory. If she wishes to pursue that new theory against new defendants, she will need to file a new lawsuit. Plaintiff neither requested nor received permission to file an Amended Complaint. And this is not an Amended Complaint anyway; it is a new lawsuit with the original defendants dropped and new defendants named based on a new theory of retaliatory conspiracy. For the purposes of this lawsuit, the Court construes the document as an objection and overrules it on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Dismissal of all claims is therefore appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are sua sponte DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and for failure to state a claim.

Dated: May 5, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE