Jenkins v. McHugh, No. 1:2011cv00949 - Document 42 (W.D. Mich. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 33 , Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 13 is GRANTED; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AARON S. JENKINS, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:11-cv-949 v HON. JANET T. NEFF JOHN M. MCHUGH, Defendant. _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jenkins, a soldier in the United States Army Reserve, initiated the present action, seeking to have a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) removed from his personnel file. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. Defendant McHugh, Secretary of the Army, moved for summary judgment, and the Magistrate Judge held a motion hearing on May 31, 2012. After consideration of both the oral and written arguments, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court grant Defendant s motion and dismiss Plaintiff s action (Dkt 33). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff s objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkts 37, 38), to which Defendant filed a response (Dkt 40). When objections are received to a magistrate judge s report on a dispositive matter, the district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge s disposition that has been properly objected to. FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The local rules of this Court require that the objecting party specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). While a pro se litigant s objections should be liberally construed by the Court, see Boswell v. Mayer, 169 F.3d 384, 387 (6th Cir. 1999), Plaintiff s objections wholly fail to reference the Report and Recommendation, let alone state a valid objection to it. Plaintiff s mere dissatisfaction with the recommended result, without any explanation as to how the Magistrate Judge might have erred in applying the pertinent legal standards or evaluating the decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, cannot serve as a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkts 37, 38) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 33) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 13) is GRANTED. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Dated: September ___, 2012 24 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.