Larry Robinson v. Kandy Burnham and Lori Blue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY ROBINSON, Plaintiff, CASE No. 1:23-CV-431 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER KANDY BURNHAM and LORI BLUE, Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action (ECF No. 80) and Plaintiff’s Objection to it. (ECF No. 81).

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 the defense motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74) and dismissing this case. In his objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands upon arguments presented in his original brief. His objections fail to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the record, the parties’ arguments, and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the law. The Court concludes the defendants are entitled to summary judgment for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge. In particular, Plaintiff has failed to present medical evidence establishing that any delay in treatment caused him to suffer adverse medical consequences, as was required for him to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim, and Plaintiff further failed to present evidence that his medical circumstances or treatment needs for similar to those of his alleged comparator as was required to proceed on his Equal Protection claim. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 80) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74) is GRANTED.

The Court discerns no good-faith basis for appeal of this matter. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

This case is CLOSED. A separate Judgment shall enter.

Dated: November 10, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE