Teets 759627 v. Vanderwagon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACOB ROBERT TEETS,

Plaintiff, CASE No. 1:24-CV-1249 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER S. VANDERWAGON, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 55). 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 granting Defendant Wakefield’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) and that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Wakefield be dismissed

without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. Plaintiff’s objections fail to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the record and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Plaintiff’s claims. Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees that Defendant Wakefield’s motion should be granted for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge. CONCLUSION ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 49) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.

34) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Wakefield are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: August 7, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE