Buford #179711 v. Getting et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
FREDRICK LEDELL BUFORD,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:25-CV-1657
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
JEFFREY S. GETTING, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
6) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7). 	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 , F EDERAL 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 1:25-cv-01657-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 1
of 2

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 dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted under the screening mechanism of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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 and the governing law. 	The
Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the law. 	Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the
fundamental analysis. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s Complaint must
be dismissed for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 6) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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).
This case is CLOSED.
Dated: 	January 13, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01657-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 2
of 2