Goben v. Kent, County of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AULTON DANIEL GOBEN, III,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:25-CV-17
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
KENT COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate
Judge in this action on December 8, 2025. 	(ECF No. 83). 	The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
grant Defendants Dominguez and Shaverlier’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61). 	Among
other things, the Magistrate Judge concludes that video evidence conclusively undercuts Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims against the two defendants; that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in
any event; and that the Court ought to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims, to the extent any such claims are pleaded.
The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. 	No objections have been filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Instead, in a series of filings docketed as “Declarations” Plaintiff
contends he was presented with a copy of the underlying motion for summary judgment, but that it was
immediately seized by prison officials. 	(ECF No. 73, 84, 85). 	On the face of these materials, Plaintiff
has been aware of the defense motion since early September, but he has never formally sought any relief
Case 1:25-cv-00017-RJJ-MV ECF No. 90, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 1
of 2

here.1 Nor has he timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 	Moreover, nothing within
the contents of these materials warrants de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. 	See FED R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3) (noting the district judge must determine de novo any
part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to). 	Nevertheless, the Court has
reviewed the Report and Recommendation and determines that it is factually sound and legally correct.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 83) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall correct the docket text of ECF No. 85
to reflect the filing as a Declaration submitted by Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defense motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims in this action. 	Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
refiling in State Court.
Dated: 	January 02, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The filing at ECF No. 85 was docketed by the Clerk of Court as a Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 	A review of that filing reflects that--like the
other submissions--it contains the heading of “Declaration” and the contents are related to a provision of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that is entirely unconnected to the instant proceedings. 	The Clerk
of Court is directed to amend the docket text of ECF No. 85 to reflect the filing as a Declaration submitted
by Plaintiff. 	The Court observes, furthermore, that the manner of the declarations submitted by Plaintiff
are not filings that are contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and are not an effective way
of litigating a case. 	Plaintiff, if he wishes to pursue some type of relief, must do so by way of motion
consistent with the Federal Rules, this Court’s local rules, and the Case Management Order entered in this
Case.
Case 1:25-cv-00017-RJJ-MV ECF No. 90, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/02/26 Page 2
of 2