Lane v. Cassopolis, Village of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HUGH MAC LANE,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:25-CV-646
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
VILLAGE OF CASSOPOLIS and
ADAM JASON DAHLGREN,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
11) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12). 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,
M ILLER , & M ARCUS , F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 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. C IV. 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
Case 1:25-cv-00646-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 1
of 2

2
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 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6)
because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over his claims. (ECFR No. 11, PageID.68-69). Plaintiff Lane’s objections fail to deal in a
meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and the rules regarding diversity jurisdiction
and federal question jurisdiction. 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. 11) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is
GRANTED.
Dated: 	November 7, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00646-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 2
of 2