Beal #327749 v. Kowalski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
LATAVIOUS BEAL,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 2:25-CV-147
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
SUSAN C. KOWALSKI,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
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 (ECF No. 47), Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 50), and Defendant’s
Response. 	(ECF No. 51). 	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 , FEDERAL 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 2:25-cv-00147-RJJ-MV ECF No. 53, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 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 Defendant Kowalski’s motion for summary
judgment. 	Plaintiff’s objection does not meaningfully respond to the Magistrate Judge’s
reasoning. 	Indeed, it appears Plaintiff is raising factual contentions that are entirely irrelevant to
the instant proceedings. 	To the extent the objections do relate to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, the Court rejects them. 	The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly
considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the governing law. In fact, the Magistrate Judge
even went out of his way to address Plaintiff’s Complaint on a legal theory Plaintiff did not raise,
rather than stop after reaching the correct conclusion that the only theory Plaintiff did raise based
on the Fifth Amendment had no potential application. 	Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
properly analyzed Plaintiff’s claims. 	Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental
analysis. 	The Court concludes that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be granted,
for the very reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.1
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 47) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kowalski’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 29) is GRANTED.
1 In particular, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant is entitled to summary
judgment on the merits of the due process claim and based on qualified immunity. 	Accordingly,
the Court need not determine whether it agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s claim is
also barred by Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981).
Case 2:25-cv-00147-RJJ-MV ECF No. 53, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 2
of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kowalski’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 45)
is GRANTED. 	The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiff’s sur-reply (ECF No. 44) for failure to
comply with this district’s local rules.
A separate Judgment shall issue.
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).
Dated: 	June 4, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00147-RJJ-MV ECF No. 53, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 3
of 3