Case Information
*1 Case 1:25-cv-00339-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.34 Filed 04/14/25 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION ERIC D. GANT, Plaintiff, CASE No. 1:25-CV-339 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER NELNET, Defendant. __________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’ Report and Recommendation in this matter (ECF No. 6) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11). 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 W RIGHT , 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.
F ED R. C IV . P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in such 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 *2 Case 1:25-cv-00339-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 12, PageID.35 Filed 04/14/25 Page 2 of 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 this case under 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 Plaintiff’s claims. Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections changes the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge. Moreover nothing in the Amended Complaint changes matters. The Amended Complaint is futile because it must be dismissed for the same reasons Plaintiff’s original complaint must be dismissed.
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 the case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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).
A separate Judgment shall enter. Dated: April 14, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2