Robinson #341328 v. Burnham et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:23-CV-431
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
KANDY BURNHAM and LORI BLUE,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States
Magistrate Judge in this action (ECF No. 80) and Plaintiff’s Objection to it. 	(ECF No. 81).
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 1:23-cv-00431-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 1
of 3

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 the defense motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 74) and dismissing this case. 	In his objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and
expands upon arguments presented in his original brief. 	His 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 the law. 	The Court concludes the defendants are entitled to summary
judgment for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge. 	In particular, Plaintiff has
failed to present medical evidence establishing that any delay in treatment caused him to suffer
adverse medical consequences, as was required for him to proceed on his Eighth Amendment
claim, and Plaintiff further failed to present evidence that his medical circumstances or treatment
needs for similar to those of his alleged comparator as was required to proceed on his Equal
Protection claim. 	Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 80) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
74) is GRANTED.
Case 1:23-cv-00431-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 2
of 3

3
The Court discerns no good-faith basis for appeal of this matter. 	See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
This case is CLOSED. 	A separate Judgment shall enter.
Dated: 	November 10, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00431-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 82, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 3
of 3