Hugh Mac Lane v. Village of Cassopolis and Adam Jason Dahlgren

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

HUGH MAC LANE, Plaintiff, CASE No. 1:25-CV-646 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER VILLAGE OF CASSOPOLIS and ADAM JASON DAHLGREN, Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) 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, MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 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. CIV. 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 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 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) because Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. (ECFR No. 11, PageID.68-69). Plaintiff Lane’s objections fail to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and the rules regarding diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Plaintiff’s claims. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 11) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.

Dated: November 7, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE