Trezil 831459 v. Gager

Opinion

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

JOSHUA TREZIL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:23-cv-790 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER UNKOWN GAGER, et al.,

Defendants,

__________________________ /

ORDER The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action (ECF No. 44) and Plaintiff’s Objection to it. (ECF No. 45). The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35) and grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where 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). The district judge need not, however, conduct de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation if the objections are improper. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1986). To be proper, an objection must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendation or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” LCivR 72.3(b). A “general objection” to the Magistrate Judge’s report, “which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). In fact, a “general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff did not properly object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. His filing merely states

that he “would like to object this report.” (ECF No. 45). His objection does not meaningfully respond to the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning on the Eighth Amendment, nor does it raise any specific objection to the Report and Recommendation. Because his general objection did not point to specific parts of that Magistrate Judge’s report, they fail to trigger de novo review. But even if Plaintiff properly objected, the Court is convinced that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis is correct. 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. 44) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED.

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