Opinion
Civil Case No. 05-40293.
May 31, 2006
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which Plaintiff has named 94 defendants in their official and individual capacities. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's complaint, filed on September 15, 2005 and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe, filed on April 17, 2006. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections on May 1, 2006. This court granted Plaintiff's motion on May 3, 2006. Plaintiff filed his objections to the report and recommendation on May 24, 2006.
The Court's standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the Report and Recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (Gadola, J.). If a party objects to portions of the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews those portions de novo. Lardie, 221 F. Supp. 2d at 807. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictate this standard of review in Rule 72(b), which states, in relevant part, that
[t]he district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Here, because Plaintiff filed objections, this Court reviews de novo those portions to which an objection has been made. See Lardie, 221 F. Supp. 2d at 807.
De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge; the Court may not act solely on the basis of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See 12 Wright, Miller Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 3070.2 (1997); see also Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court may supplement the record by entertaining additional evidence, but is not required to do so. 12 Wright, Federal Practice § 3070.2. After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See Lardie, 221 F. Supp. 2d at 807. If the Court accepts a Report and Recommendation, the Court is not required to state with specificity what it reviewed; it is sufficient for the Court to state that it engaged in a de novo review of the record and adopts the Report and Recommendation. See id.; 12 Wright, Federal Practice § 3070.2.
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's complaint, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the Plaintiff's objections. Having conducted this review under the de novo standard as detailed above, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's reasoning and conclusions are sound.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' objections [docket entry 19] are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's complaint [docket entry 1] is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.