Smith #482352 v. Goostrey et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BOBBY J. SMITH, #482352, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:22-cv-753
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
UNKNOWN G OOSTREY ,
et al., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Bobby Smith, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of
Corrections, alleges the defendants violated his civil rights. Two defendants remain. Two
claims also remain, one under federal law and one under state law.
Defendants Goostrey and Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
59). 	The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the court grant the motion and
dismiss the federal claim (ECF No. 66). 	The Magistrate Judge recommends declining to
exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim. Plaintiff, who does not have counsel to assist
him, filed objections (ECF No. 67). 	The court will adopt the recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge.
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
Case 1:22-cv-00753-PLM-PJG ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/20/26 Page 1
of 2

2
de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
The Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff cannot establish causation for his
retaliation claim. 	Plaintiff does not address the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the law
concerning retaliation and the causation element. Most of Plaintiff’s objections fail to address
the facts outlined in the R&R concerning causation and, therefore, do not provide a reason
for the court to reject the R&R.
In paragraph 6, Plaintiff asserts he was not voluntarily staying in temporary segregation
because if he had been told to leave and did not, he would have been issued a misconduct
ticket. The court overrules the objection. The Magistrate Judge accurately summarized the
evidence in the record. The Security Classification Committee gave Plaintiff the option of
staying in temporary segregation until his transfer. Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence
in the record to contradict this fact. 	As a result, Defendants have demonstrated that the
reason Plaintiff remained in temporary custody was unrelated to the grievance.
For these reasons, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No.
66). The court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 59). The
court dismisses Plaintiff’s retaliation claim with prejudice and declines to exercise jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s state law claim, which is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	February 20, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:22-cv-00753-PLM-PJG ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/20/26 Page 2
of 2