Lopp #654488 v. Washington et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSHUA LOPP #654488,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-1135
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
ADAM HOLLINGSWORTH et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’s report and recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 148) and Plaintiff’s objections to that report and recommendation (ECF No. 149).
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when 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 W RIGHT &
M ILLER’ S FEDERAL PRACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 3070.2 (3d ed. 2025). 	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 Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
Case 1:22-cv-01135-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 153, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page
1 of 2

The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 126), denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 130), and dismissing
this action. In the objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands upon arguments presented
in the original complaint. 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, the
parties’ arguments, and the governing law. 	The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Plaintiff’s
claims. Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes the fundamental analysis.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 148) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
126) is GRANTED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 130) is DENIED,
and that this case is DISMISSED.
A separate Judgment shall issue.
Dated: March 19, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cv-01135-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 153, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page
2 of 2