Brazil #627439 v. Kraus et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TALLEON S. BRAZIL,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:26-CV-1589
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
NATHANIEL KRAUS,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
7) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8). 	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 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 1
of 4

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.
Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Ionia
Correctional Facility. 	The events he complaints about, however, took place while he was
incarcerated at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility near Jackson, Michigan. 	As Plaintiff
tells it, on June 11, 2021, Jackson and another inmate–Shawn Highshaw–were sent to injure or kill
Plaintiff by unnamed MDOC corrections officers who were upset with Plaintiff.1 Jackson and
Highshaw attacked subsequently Plaintiff and his cellmate. 	By his own admission, Plaintiff says
he killed Jackson during the assault. 	Plaintiff says he did so in self-defense.
On September 26, 2023, the Jackson County prosecuting attorney’s office declined to
authorize charges against Plaintiff based on insufficient evidence. 	As is implicit in Plaintiff’s
materials, the investigation continued into October, but Plaintiff says that during the investigation
Defendant Kraus received two pieces of information that only bolstered the lack of evidence. In
particular, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Kraus received an affidavit from Mr. Highshaw and
Plaintiff’s cellmate both of which confirmed Plaintiff had acted in self-defense. It appears that
Defendant Kraus subsequently learned the affidavit of the cellmate may have been prepared by a
third party for the cellmate, but the third party denied preparing Mr. Highshaw’s affidavit and Mr.
Highshaw also told the investigator that he had prepared his affidavit himself. 	According to
Plaintiff, at the end of the investigation Defendant McKeon, a prosecuting attorney, charged him
1 Plaintiff does not name any MDOC officials as defendants in this case or otherwise bring claims
relating to the Juen 11, 2021 events. 	This case, rather, is solely about the subsequent investigation
and charging decisions.
Case 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 2
of 4

3
with open murder and the case was turned over to Defendant Mackereth, another prosecuting
attorney. 	The criminal case remains open.
The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against
Defendants McKeon and Mackereth on grounds of prosecutorial immunity; that the Court further
dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Kraus for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; and finally that the Court decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice. 	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. In the
main, Plaintiff appears to insist that he has done enough to go forward on core claim that his
prosecution lacks probable cause. 	But as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, Plaintiff contested
the issue of probable cause at the preliminary examination and was bound over to circuit court
based upon a finding of probable cause. The Magistrate Judge thus concluded that Plaintiff was
foreclosed from challenging the issue of probable cause here; and Plaintiff does not address this
point in his objections. Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge also found, Plaintiff admitted to killing
Mr. Jackson, and his contentions regarding self-defense did not suffice to plausibly allege the
absence of probable cause. 	As a general matter, “[e]ven if the circumstances suggest that a
suspect may have an affirmative defense, if a reasonable officer would not ‘conclusively know’
that the suspect is protected by the defense, then he is free to arrest the suspect provided there is
probable cause to do so.” Fridley v. Horrighs, 291 F.3d 867, 873 (6th Cir. 2002). 	Here, Plaintiff
has not alleged facts that any defendant “conclusively” knew that Plaintiff was protected by the
Case 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 3
of 4

4
defense. 	At best, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants knew that he might argue self-defense
after he admitted to killing Mr. Jackson.
For all these reasons, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommended
disposition for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) 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: 	June 17, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 4
of 4