Derek Kline v. Randee Rewerts, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEREK KLINE, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-1103 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING RANDEE REWERTS, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant Unknown Baubit, a registered nurse and the remaining Defendant in this case, filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16, 37, and 41 based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his Eighth Amendment claim against her. Plaintiff did not file any response to the motion, and the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court grant the motion and require Plaintiff to reimburse Defendant Baubit in the amount of $314.77, which is the cost Defendant paid for the deposition at which Plaintiff, who was then on parole, failed to appear. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33), to which Defendant Baubit filed a response (ECF No. 35).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court is obliged to perform de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Plaintiff’s objections do not address—let alone reveal error in—the bases for dismissal discussed by the Magistrate Judge. Rather, in his “objections” to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff merely reiterates the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim and his general disagreement with the ultimate recommendation to close his case (id. at PageID.226–227). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion, and the Report and Recommendation is properly approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court. Additionally, a Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. For the above reasons and because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court will also certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610–11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211–12 (2007). Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 33) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 29) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Baubit’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is required to reimburse Defendant Baubit in the amount of $314.77.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.

Dated: March 24, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge