Smith #391981 v. United States of America et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JHAL DEVONN SMITH #391981,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:26-cv-0535
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 8) and Defendant’s Objections to that Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9).
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when 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 &
Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2 (3d ed. 2025). 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. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims 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.
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. In the objections, Plaintiff primarily
Case 1:26-cv-00535-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 1
of 2

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. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 8) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.
A separate Judgment shall issue.
Dated: May 6, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00535-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/06/26 Page 2
of 2