Byrd #682089 v. Bennett et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GERALD BYRD, #682089,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:23-cv-0304
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
UNKNOWN BENNETT, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
40), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 41), and Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 43). 	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 ’S FEDERAL P RACTICE AND
P ROCEDURE § 3070.2 (3d ed. 1998). 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
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 1:23-cv-00304-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 44, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 1
of 2

2
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 32) 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. 40) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
32) is GRANTED and that this case is DISMISSED.
A separate Judgment shall issue.
Dated: November 7, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00304-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 44, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/07/25 Page 2
of 2