UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN E. BONHAM,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-236 v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou MONICA M. JANISKEE, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER Plaintiff Kevin E. Bonham filed this lawsuit against Defendants Monica Janiskee, Kent County, Elizabeth Bartlett, Vital Core Health Strategies, Michigan Department of Corrections, Christopher Becker, and “Dr. Laurain.” (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Under

(e)(2)(B), Magistrate Judge Vermaat reviewed Plaintiff’s pro se complaint and submitted a report and recommendation (“R&R”) explaining why Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (ECF No. 5). For the reasons discussed herein, the Court agrees with the R&R; the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objection and dismiss the complaint. Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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). Plaintiff only raises one issue in his objection; Plaintiff takes issue with Magistrate Judge Vermaat mistakenly mischaracterizing one of the allegations in the complaint. The R&R states that Plaintiff accused Judge Christina Mims—who is presiding over Plaintiff’s state court proceedings—of illicit drug use. However, as Plaintiff notes in his objection, his complaint accuses Defendant Janiskee of illicit drug use, not Judge Mims. Other than this correction, Plaintiff merely expresses his opinion that the R&R was wrong. However, having reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s complaint should be

dismissed. His official capacity claims calling for an injunction to interrupt the state court prosecution are barred under Younger v. Harris,

(1971). Additionally, the prosecutor-defendants are immune from the

claims, and Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to raise claims against the other defendants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court with the correction that Plaintiff accuses Defendant Janiskee of illicit drug use, not Judge Mims. A judgment will issue in accordance with this Order.

Dated: July 11, 2025 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE