Magistrelli v. Magistratelli

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 34 ; denying objections 43 ; denying as moot pending motions 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 41 ; the Court certifies that an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAROL D. MAGISTRELLI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:14-cv-657

v

HON. JANET T. NEFF

GARY C. MAGISTRELLI,
Defendant.
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, removed this action to this Court on June 18, 2014. On the same
day the matter was removed, Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt 2) and moved for
the “immediate disqualification of Judge Robert Holmes Bell and Judge Scoville” (Dkt 3). Plaintiff
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Order, Dkt 23), and Plaintiff’s disqualification
motion was rendered moot inasmuch as the case was assigned to the undersigned. Plaintiff also filed
a plethora of other miscellaneous motions on June 18, 2014: motions for appointment of counsel
(Dkts 10 & 31), motions for various forms of injunctive relief (Dkts 4-9, 11, 15, 24-28, 32) and
motions that concerned the service and processing of the case (Dkts 12-14, 17). The Magistrate
Judge first performed an initial screening of the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued
a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court dismiss this matter for failure to state
any claim upon which relief may be granted. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 43). Plaintiff has also since filed three more

1

motions that concern the processing of this case (Dkts 36-37 & 41). 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 objections have been made. For the reasons
that follow, the Court denies the objections, denies Plaintiff’s pending motions as moot, and issues
this Opinion and Order.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s “rambling, stream-of-consciousness, mostly
unintelligible complaint and related filings” against her ex-husband, sister, various judges, lawyers
and law enforcement officers were both “legally and factually frivolous” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The Magistrate Judge concluded that when measured against the pleading standards
enunciated in Twombly1 and Iqbal,2 Plaintiff had failed to state any claim upon which this Court
could grant relief.
Plaintiff’s objections similarly provide nothing more than conclusions of alleged wrongdoing
and do not demonstrate any error in the Magistrate Judge’s determination. Indeed, the nature of
Plaintiff’s objections serves only to reinforce the propriety of the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court.

Having adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation to dismiss this case, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are properly
denied as moot. See Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993) (appointment of counsel
not justified where the Court finds the pro se litigant’s complaint fails to state a claim).

1

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
2

As the Court’s decision terminates this action, the Court will also deny the remaining
pending motions as moot and enter a corresponding Judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. For the
above reasons and because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court certifies pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of the 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). Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 43) are DENIED and the Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 34) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for the Immediate
Disqualification and Substitution of Judge Robert Holmes Bell and Judge Scoville in Federal Court,
Grnad Rapids, Michigan for Having Ex Parte Communications with Federal Judges” (Dkt 3) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for Prospective
Injunction and Declaratory Relief” (Dkt 4) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Return Karol to the Status Quo”
(Dkt 5) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Magistrate Judge” (Dkt 7) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Dkt 8) is
DENIED as moot.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Vacate the Theft
Charge and Warrant by the Holland, MI Police Department” (Dkt 9) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel (Dkts 10 & 31)
are DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Vacate Erroneous
Charge and Warrant from Kalamazoo, MI Police Department” (Dkt 11) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Special Process Server” (Dkt 12)
is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for leave to file proper
memorandum” (Dkt 13) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Claim for Relief to Be Granted First
Preliminary Version” (Dkt 14) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Vacate the Alleged
Charge and Warrant for Criminal Trespass” (Dkt 15) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Have DOJ and FBI send out the
summons, waivers and notifications” (Dkt 17) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Vacate the New
Charge and Warrant Allegedly from Benton Harbor MI” (Dkt 24) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Vacate the Extortion
Amount that the 19th Judicial Court called Child Support Arrears” (Dkt 25) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Apprehend Linda
Slaktoski” (Dkt 26) is DENIED as moot.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Apprehend Gary
Magistrelli” (Dkt 27) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s combined “Motion for Immediate Prospective
Injunction and Declaratory Relief Against Muskegon Police and the 60th District Court” and
“Emergency Motion to Vacate Erroneous Charge and Warrant from Muskegon Police Department”
(Dkt 28) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion “for order to Apprehend Mike Waller
for the Following Bad Acts” (Dkt 32) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion “for order for forensic accountant”
(Dkt 36) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s combined Motion “for declaratory judgment
against Grnad Rapids, MI Police Department, et al” and “for preliminary injunction” (Dkt 37) is
DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion to Correct the Title of
This Suit” (Dkt 41) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a) that
an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

Date: January 7, 2015

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

5