Vorce #09764-089 v. Lake Michigan Credit Union et al

Filing 10

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 , dismissing this action with prejudice, and denying leave to appeal in forma pauperis ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL BRUCE VORCE, #09764-089, Plaintiff, File No. 1:13-CV-132 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL LAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants. / ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On February 20, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that pro se Plaintiff Michael Bruce Vorce’s in forma pauperis complaint be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Dkt. No. 6, R&R.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on March 29, 2013. (Dkt. No. 9, Objs.) This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[A] general objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s complaint asserts federal and state claims against the Lake Michigan Credit Union on behalf of members of the Lake Michigan Credit Union who suffered a loss as a result of Plaintiff’s own fraud. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because Plaintiff lacks standing to assert the rights of third parties and because no federal court would allow Plaintiff to represent the interests of those who suffered a loss as a result of Plaintiff’s own fraud. Plaintiff objects to the R&R. He contends that this civil action is a manifestation of his effort and commitment to become a better man and to do what is morally proper and correct, as directed by this Court at sentencing. Regardless of Plaintiff’s motivations for filing this case, Plaintiff has not shown that the Magistrate Judge’s assessment of the merits of this action was erroneous. On review, this Court agrees that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this case and that he is not an appropriate person to represent the interests of the members of the Lake Michigan Credit Union. The Court further certifies, for the reasons stated in the R&R, that an appeal of this action would not be in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 9) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 20, 2013, R&R (Dkt. No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED Dated: April 10, 2013 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3