Vorce #09764-089 v. Lake Michigan Credit Union et al
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
MICHAEL BRUCE VORCE, #09764-089,
File No. 1:13-CV-132
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
LAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT UNION, et al.,
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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the February 20, 2013, R&R (Dkt. No. 6) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH
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