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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?