Jackson v. Fifth Third Bank, Kentucky, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 ; denying plaintiff's motion to disqualify 8 ; dismissing as moot all remaining motions 16 , 21 , 11 , and dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEFFREY JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
No. 1:10-cv-1105
v.
HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL
FIFTH THIRD BANK,
Defendant.
/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT

On December 20, 2010, Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff Jeffrey Jackson’s complaint be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 9.) This matter is before the
Court on Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 10). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s
motion to disqualify. (Dkt. No. 8.)
Plaintiff seeks to disqualify this Court because the undersigned judge was the
defendant in a separate action filed by Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 8) The subject of that action was
Plaintiff’s discontent with this Court’s application of the law in yet another matter. (Case
No. 1:10-cv-1255, Dkt. No. 4 at 1-2.) Plaintiff’s suit against this Court was dismissed on
grounds of absolute judicial immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. (Id. at 3.) The undersigned judge is no longer a defendant in any pending action,

and disqualification in this matter would not be appropriate based on Plaintiff’s prior
frivolous filings. Plaintiff has not alleged by affidavit or any other means that this Court
carries any personal bias or prejudice against Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
disqualify will be denied.
Plaintiff’s one page objection to the R&R does not offer any specific objections in
response to the Magistrate Judge’s opinion. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.
1995) (“[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.”). Plaintiff merely
declares that the R&R is “void,” and restates his belief that he is entitled to relief under the
Contract Clause of the Constitution, a matter which was squarely addressed in the R&R.
(Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiff does not have the power to “void” opinions, and he offers no
argument refuting the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Having reviewed the materials in this matter, the Court concludes that the December
20, 2010, R&R correctly analyzes the issues and makes a sound recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify (Dkt. No. 8) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the December 20, 2010, R&R (Dkt. No. 9) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all remaining motions are dismissed as MOOT.

Dated: July 29, 2011

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell
ROBERT HOLMES BELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE