govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01589-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
 SOUTHERN DIVISION 
 
 
TALLEON S. BRAZIL, 
 
Plaintiff, 

v. 
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER 
NATHANIEL KRAUS, 
 
Defendants. 
__________________________________/ 
 
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Berens’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 
7) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8). U nder 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 W
RIGHT, 
MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 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. 
 
F
ED R. CIV. 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 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 1
of 4
 
 
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. 
 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections at the Ionia 
Correctional Facility. The events he complaints about, however, took place while he was 
incarcerated at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility near Jackson, Michigan. As Plaintiff 
tells it, on June 11, 2021, Jackson and another inmate–Shawn Highshaw–were sent to injure or kill 
Plaintiff by unnamed MDOC corrections officers who were upset with Plaintiff .
1 Jackson and 
Highshaw attacked subsequently Plaintiff and his cellmate. By his own admission, Plaintiff says 
he killed Jackson during the assault. Plaintiff says he did so in self -defense. 
 On September 26, 2023, the Jackson County prosecuting attorney’s office declined to 
authorize charges against Plaintiff based on insufficient evidence. As is implicit in Plaintiff’s 
materials, the investigation continued into October, but Plaintiff says that during the investigation 
Defendant Kraus received two pieces of information that only bolstered the lack of evidence. In 
particular, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Kraus received an affidavit from Mr. Highshaw and 
Plaintiff’s cellmate both of which confirmed Plaintiff had acted in self -defense. It appears that 
Defendant Kraus subsequently learned the affidavit of the cellmate may have been prepared by a 
third party for the cellmate, but the third party denied preparing Mr. Highshaw’s affidavit and Mr. 
Highshaw also told the investigator that he had prepared his affidavit himself. According to 
Plaintiff, at the end of the investigation Defendant McKeon, a prosecuting attorney, charged him 
 
1 Plaintiff does not name any MDOC officials as defendants in this case or otherwise bring claims 
relating to the Juen 11, 2021 events. This case, rather, is solely about the subsequent investigation 
and charging decisions. 
Case 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 2
of 4
 
 
3 
with open murder and the case was turned over to Defendant Mackereth, another prosecuting 
attorney. The criminal case remains open. 
 The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against 
Defendants McKeon and Mackereth on grounds of prosecutorial immunity; that the Court further 
dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Kraus for failure to state a claim upon which 
relief may be granted; and finally that the Court decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction 
over the state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice. Plaintiff’s objections fail 
to deal in a meaningful way with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The Magistrate Judge carefully 
and thoroughly considered the record and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly 
analyzed the law. Nothing in P laintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis. In the 
main, Plaintiff appears to insist that he has done enough to go forward on core claim that his 
prosecution lacks probable cause. But as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, Plaintiff contested 
the issue of probable cause at the preliminary examination and was bound over to circuit court 
based upon a finding of probable cause. The Magistrate Judge thus concluded that Plaintiff was 
foreclosed from challenging the issue of probable cause here; and Plaintiff does not address this 
point in his objections. Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge also found, Plaintiff admitted to killing 
Mr. Jackson, and his contentions regarding self -defense did not suffice to plausibly allege the 
absence of probable cause. As a general matter, “[e]ven if the circumstances suggest that a 
suspect may have an affirmative defense, if a reasonable officer would not ‘ conclusively know’ 
that the suspect is protected by the defense, then he is free to arrest the suspect provided there is 
probable cause to do so.” Fridley v. Horrighs, 291 F.3d 867, 873 (6th Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff 
has not alleged facts that any defendant “conclusively” knew that Plaintiff was protected by the 
Case 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 3
of 4
 
 
4 
defense. At best, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants knew that he might argue self-defense 
after he admitted to killing Mr. Jackson. 
 For all these reasons, t he Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge ’s recommended 
disposition for the very reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to 
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 
The Court discerns no good- faith basis for appeal of this matter. See McGore v. 
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 
 This case is CLOSED. 
 
 
Dated: June 17, 2026 /s/ Robert J. Jonker 
 ROBERT J. JONKER 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 1:26-cv-01589-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 4
of 4

Passage view · GavelSight