UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

TREY LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:23-cv-148 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING UNKNOWN GASKILL, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to

arising out of a series of events that occurred in April 2022 at the Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF). The remaining Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that she is entitled to qualified immunity (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff did not respond. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending the motion be granted and this case closed (R&R, ECF No. 32). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Objections and Recommendations” (ECF No. 34).1 In accordance with

(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court performs de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been properly made. Nowhere in Plaintiff’s document, however, does he directly address any specific portion of the Report and Recommendation, and therefore he has not filed proper

1 Plaintiff’s objections were not timely filed. However, an entry on the docket reflects that the initial copy of the Report and Recommendation mailed to Plaintiff did not reach him. Accordingly, the Court does not deny the objections on the ground that they were not timely filed. objections. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b) (“objections … shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections”). Therefore, Plaintiff has not identified any error in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning or conclusion. Instead, Plaintiff’s concluding paragraph reveals his document to be an attempt to file a

late response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34 at PageID.331). But the deadline to do so passed many months ago. Plaintiff has not moved for an extension or for leave to file a late response and he does not articulate any reason—let alone compelling reasons—for the long delay. In any event, Plaintiff’s document is entirely devoid of citations to record evidence. Although pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, see, e.g., Williams v. Curtin,

(6th Cir. 2011), pro se litigants are not entirely exempted from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wells v. Brown,

(6th Cir. 1989). Even pro se litigants are “required to follow the rules of civil procedure and easily-understood court deadlines.” Solomon v. Mich. State Police, No. 1:08-cv-

858,

, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 2, 2010). For these reasons, and as further explained in Defendant’s response (ECF No. 35) to the extent it is not inconsistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denies the objections. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,

(2007). Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 34) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 32) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is

GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.

Dated: August 12, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge