Best v. Thompson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JASON THOMAS BEST, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-773
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
CHRISTINE THOMPSON ,
et al., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jason Best, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed a 72-page
complaint alleging various violations of his civil rights. 	He also alleges defamation against
four individuals. Best sought leave to file his complaint without paying the filing fee, which
the court granted. 	The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint and issued a report
recommending the court dismiss the defamation claims (ECF No. 11 R&R). Plaintiff filed
objections (ECF No. 13).
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
Case 1:25-cv-00773-PLM-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/12/25 Page 1
of 3

2
The allegedly defamatory statements made by the four defendants were used in a
disciplinary hearing (R&R at 15 PageID.228). 	The Magistrate Judge recommends finding
that the statements were, therefore, privileged (
Id. at 16 PageID.229). 	Plaintiff does not
object to this finding or recommendation.
Under Michigan law, a plaintiff may overcome the qualified privilege associated with
a statement only by showing the author made the statement “with actual malice, i.e., with
knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.”
Smith v. Fergan, 450 N.W.2d 3,
5 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989);
see Hieber v. Oakland Cnty., 136 F.4th 308, 326 (6th Cir. 2025).
General allegations of malice will not suffice; a complaint must plead specific facts to show
malice.
See Swenson-Davis v. Martel, 354 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984);
see also
Ryniewicz v. Clarivate Analytics, 803 F. App’x 858, 868 (6th Cir. 2020) (concluding that the
complaint failed to plead facts to show malice).
The Magistrate Judge concludes that the complaint fails to allege facts with sufficient
specificity establishing that the various statements made by the defendants were made with
malice (R&R at 17 PageID.230). The Magistrate Judge explains that the allegedly malicious
statements were “merely perceptions of what Defendants believed had happened during
their interactions with Best” (
id.). 	The Magistrate Judge characterizes Plaintiff’s claim for
malice as a challenge to “the perceptions of the witnesses” based on their involvement in the
incident (
id.).
Plaintiff objects. 	Plaintiff argues that construing all of his allegations as true, he has
pled facts permitting an inference of malice, that each defendant knew his or her statement
was false.
Case 1:25-cv-00773-PLM-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/12/25 Page 2
of 3

3
The court overrules Plaintiff’s objection. The Magistrate Judge accurately described
most of the allegedly false statements as subjective perceptions (e.g., Plaintiff was loud;
Plaintiff jabbed his elbow like a knife; Plaintiff’s rant lasted 20 minutes). For other allegedly
false statements, Plaintiff’s allegations do not sufficiently support an inference of malice. At
best, the complaint contains general allegations of malice, but not sufficiently specific details
to support an inference of malice.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 11). IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	December 12, 2025 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00773-PLM-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/12/25 Page 3
of 3