Gresham 272603 v. Awomolo

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GRESHAM,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-242 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER ADEYINKA AWOMOLO, et al.,

Defendants,

__________________________ /

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action (ECF No. 72) and Plaintiff’s Objection to it. (ECF No. 73). 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. Plaintiff’s Objection primarily shows his general disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and asserts that the Defendants tampered with evidence. But he supplies no evidence to support these claims. His objections fail to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s Eighth Amendment analysis. 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 Plaintiff’s Objection changes the fundamental analysis. The Court concludes that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 72) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED.

Dated: September 19, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE