Jack v. Kalamazoo County Sheriff Department
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 5 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM GLENN JACK,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:14-cv-560
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
KALAMAZOO COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this case seeking the return of property purportedly held as evidence by the
Kalamazoo County Sheriff Department. The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who granted
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed as a pauper and conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it was frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. On June 5, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation (R & R), recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice because
Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in this Court: “Plaintiff’s one
sentence complaint, which states he is suing for ‘$200 property in evidence that I showed proof of
ownership for in court …’ raises no federal question” (R & R at p. ID# 10).
The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and
Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court
has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objection has been made. The Court denies the objection and issues this Opinion and Order.
In his brief objection, Plaintiff merely offers supporting information to show what happened
and asserts that the Kalamazoo County Sheriff Department has refused to return his property despite
his multiple trips there. Plaintiff’s objection fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Plaintiff’s
complaint fails to show a viable claim before this Court because it raises no federal question.
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58.
For the above reasons and because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court also certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds
by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the objection (Dkt 6) is DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 5) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a) that
an appeal of the decision would not be taken in good faith.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
Dated: June ___, 2014
27
2
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?