Cooper-Keel v. Baier et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NEVIN P. COOPER-KEEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY BAIER, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-1235
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Nevin P. Cooper-Keel, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Defendants
Jeremy Baier, an Allegan County assistant prosecutor; and Carter Woodwyk, a Michigan
Department of Natural Resources officer. Plaintiff alleges malicious prosecution and due process
violations arising from a misdemeanor charge that was brought against him but subsequently
dismissed. 	Defendant Baier was previously dismissed from this action. 	Defendant Woodwyk
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which was fully briefed and referred to the
Magistrate Judge. 	The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R),
recommending that this Court grant the motion and close this case. The matter is presently before
the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which Woodwyk filed a
response. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3),
the 	Court 	has 	performed 	de 	novo 	consideration 	of 	those 	portions 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections.
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 43, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/24/26 Page 1
of 2

2
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the factual allegations that Plaintiff supplied
in support of his claims, concluding that neither claim was plausibly alleged (R&R, ECF No. 39
at PageID.414–416). In his objections, Plaintiff reiterates his arguments that his factual allegations
were sufficient to support his claims (Objs., ECF No. 40 at PageID.421–424). 	As Defendant
Woodwyk points out (Resp., ECF No. 41 at PageID.427), Plaintiff states merely a “wholesale
objection” to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, which is insufficient for meaningful review by
the Court. See, e.g., Freeman v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 972 F.2d 347, at *2 (6th Cir.
1992) (“[The] purpose [of filing objections] is not served if the district court is required to conduct
a complete, de novo review of all of the pleadings that were considered by the magistrate judge.”).
In sum, Plaintiff’s objections do not reveal any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion
of this Court. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 58. 	Consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court certifies that an
appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 40) are DENIED and
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 39) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Woodwyk’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies that an appeal of this decision
would not be taken in good faith.
Dated: March 24, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01235-JMB-PJG ECF No. 43, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/24/26 Page 2
of 2