Wegener v. Department of the Navy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLEN WEGENER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-0365
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
38), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 40), and Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 43). 	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’ 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). 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 1:25-cv-00365-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/20/26 Page 1
of 3

2
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 granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8)
and denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13). The Magistrate Judge also
recommends dismissing this action. In the objections, Plaintiff primarily 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 will adopt the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 	Additionally, the
Court will deny the Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 39) that the plaintiff filed after the
Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff requested the stay so that he
could conduct additional research and rectify his financial situation prior to moving forward with
the case. (Id. at PageID.154). However, regardless of what Plaintiff might accomplish in terms
of improving his financial situation or conducting additional research, granting a stay would be
futile. 	As the Magistrate Judge explained in his Report and Recommendation, this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff has done nothing to refute that
conclusion. Therefore, the claims must be dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 38) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
Case 1:25-cv-00365-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/20/26 Page 2
of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
13 and ECF No. 46) 1 are DENIED, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is
GRANTED, and that this case is DISMISSED.
A separate Judgment shall issue.
Dated: February 20, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 	On February 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed a handwritten document titled “Motion for Summary Judgment.” (ECF
No. 46). The document fails to address any of the Magistrate Judge’s assertions regarding the Court’s lack of subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, it does nothing to change the Court’s conclusion that the case
should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case 1:25-cv-00365-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/20/26 Page 3
of 3