Lewis #781780 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARIUS LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-1068
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action filed in forma pauperis and pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The two remaining Defendants in this matter, Adrian Dirschell and Lonnie Blount, have
filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ, ECF No. 35). 	The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, ECF No. 41), recommending
that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff’s requests for
an injunction and a temporary restraining order (see Compl., ECF No. 1; TRO, ECF No. 26).
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. 	In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de
novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.
Plaintiff has filed a three-page document entitled “motion to object to report and
recommendation” which lists seven separately numbered “objections” (see Obj., ECF No. 47).
The Court will address each in turn. 	For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff’s objections lack merit and the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.
Case 1:24-cv-01068-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/25/26 Page 1
of 4

2
Plaintiff’s first, second, and third objections assert that Plaintiff requested an “alternative
diet” and that Plaintiff did not wish to eat a “vegan diet” (id. at PageID.259–260). These objections
fail at the outset because Plaintiff has not “specifically identif[ied]” the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which they apply, violating this Court’s rules. 	See W.D. Mich. LCivR
72.3(b). The Magistrate Judge explained that “portions of plaintiff’s complaint, motions and other
papers filed in this lawsuit confuse and conflate [his] claims” on this point, and the Report and
Recommendation discussed at length the procedural requirements for making an “alternative diet”
request (see R&R, ECF No. 41 at PageID.226–228). Plaintiff fails to engage with or demonstrate
error in the Report and Recommendation’s analysis of this issue (see id.). 	Additionally, as
Defendants note in their response to the objections, Plaintiff improperly restates arguments he
previously raised to the Magistrate Judge. 	See Resp., ECF No. 48 at PageID.266–267; accord
Evans v. Ordiway, No. 2:24-CV-36, 2026 WL 309173, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2026) (“Plaintiff
merely reiterates his arguments presented before the magistrate judge, which are not valid
objections to a report and recommendation. An ‘objection’ that merely ‘restates the arguments
previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate
judge.’”) (citing Peacock v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-CV-572, 2016 WL 2997429, at *1
(W.D. Mich. May 25, 2016)); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)) (“Such
duplication defeats the purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act[.]”). These objections lacks merit.
Plaintiff’s fourth objection addresses evidence that he purchased “food from the prison
store” that did not conform to his religious diet (see Obj., ECF No. 47 at PageID.260). Plaintiff
argues that these purchases did “not violate my sincerely held beliefs” because purchasing the
items and eating the items are different things, and if Plaintiff “was seen eating these items then
yes but purchasing no that do[es] not violate my sincerely held beliefs” (see id.). Again, Plaintiff
Case 1:24-cv-01068-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/25/26 Page 2
of 4

3
has not “specifically identif[ied]” the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which this
objection applies, violating the Court’s rules. 	See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	And Plaintiff’s
arguments fail to demonstrate factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis (see
Response, ECF No. 48 at PageID.266–267). The Court will deny this objection.
Plaintiff’s fifth through seventh objections argue that Defendants violated his constitutional
rights, citing to the Complaint rather than to the Report and Recommendation (see Obj., ECF No.
47 at PageID.260–261). 	Again, Plaintiff has not “specifically identif[ied]” the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which his objections are made, see W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b),
and his objections fail to the extent that he “merely reiterates [the] arguments presented before the
magistrate judge,” see Evans, 2026 WL 309173 at *4. These objections lack merit.
In sum, Plaintiff’s objections fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or conclusions. 	The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. 	A Judgement consistent with this Opinion and
Order will issue given that it resolves all pending claims. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 58.
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 47) are DENIED and
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 41) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(ECF No. 26) is DENIED.
Case 1:24-cv-01068-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/25/26 Page 3
of 4

4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants Dirschell and Blount (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED and Defendants Dirschell and
Blount are TERMINATED as parties to this lawsuit.
Dated: March 25, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:24-cv-01068-JMB-RSK ECF No. 49, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/25/26 Page 4
of 4