Bradford #518162 v. Linscott et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PARIS A. BRADFORD #518162,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:23-cv-48
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
JORDAN LINSCOTT, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
49) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53). 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,
M ILLER , & M ARCUS , F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 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. C IV. 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
Case 1:23-cv-00048-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 54, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/14/25 Page 1
of 2

2
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 for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 40) and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice because Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity on every claim (ECF No. 49, PageID.359-60, 362). Plaintiff Bradford’s
objections primarily expand upon his original arguments. His objections fail to deal in a
meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and the rules regarding qualified immunity
for the First Amendment and Sixth Amendment issues. 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. 49) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
40) is GRANTED. As such, Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Dated: 	November 14, 2025 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00048-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 54, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/14/25 Page 2
of 2