Jones #260563 v. Stapleton et al, No. 2:2008cv00110 - Document 10 (W.D. Mich. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 4 ; signed by EDTN Judge R. Allan Edgar (EDTN Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JESSIE E. JONES #260563, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:08-cv-110 Honorable R. Allan Edgar RICHARD STAPLETON, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE JUDGE S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge on June 9, 2008. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. The Court received objections from the Plaintiff. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. The Court now finds the objections to be without merit. In his objections, Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in his complaint. However, for the reasons stated in the report and recommendation, this action is properly dismissed. Moreover, as an alternative ground, Defendant Maki is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. In Shelly v. Johnson, 849 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1988), the court affirmed a decision of Douglas W. Hillman, then Chief District Judge of this court, holding that Hearings Officer Jerry Sherman, when acting under MCLA § 791.251 -791.255, was entitled to absolute judicial immunity in relation to actions taken in his capacity as hearings officer. For the reasons stated in Shelly, Defendant Maki is entitled to absolute immunity. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is approved and adopted as the opinion of the court and plaintiff s action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). This is a dismissal described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action would not be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $255 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the three-strikes rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $455 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. Accordingly, should plaintiff seek to appeal this matter to the Sixth Circuit, the appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. Dated: /s/ R. Allan Edgar R. ALLAN EDGAR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9/26/08 -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.
