Wegener v. Pichai

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALLEN WEGENER,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:26-CV-1151
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
SUNDAR PICHAI,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
9) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12). 	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-01151-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 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 dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
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 Plaintiff’s claims. 	Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes
the fundamental analysis. 	It appears Plaintiff may believe the Magistrate Judge erroneously found
that Defendant was entitled to immunity. 	Plaintiff is incorrect. 	The Magistrate Judge, rather,
correctly identified the jurisdictional defects in Plaintiff’s pleading. 	Immunity was not at issue,
and the Magistrate Judge did not suggest otherwise. 	Plaintiff also seems to suggest that he has
made a “statement” that should suffice to move forward with his case. 	Plaintiff again misses the
mark. 	It is not a question of whether a particular set of words amounts to a declarative statement.
It is whether the set of statements amounts to a Twombly-plausible legal claim. 	Here they did not,
for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge.
CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 9) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions (ECF Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11) are
DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Case 1:26-cv-01151-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 2
of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will
assess the $605.00 appellate filing fee under § 1915(b)(1); see McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
Dated: 	April 21, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01151-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/21/26 Page 3
of 3