Lake Michigan Credit Union v. Gleason

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 19 ; Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 12 is GRANTED; Judgment to enter; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT UNION,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:16-cv-1443
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
MATTHEW DAVID GLEASON,
Defendant.

____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant’s pro se objections to a May 22,
2017 Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, recommending that this Court
grant Plaintiff’s Corrected Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 12) and close this case.
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. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Defendant, in attempting to remove this case, seeks
to invoke the authority of this Court to hear claims in a state court matter that has already been
litigated to conclusion (R&R, ECF No. 19 at PageID.157). The Magistrate Judge concluded that
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear or resolve such claims (id.). In his objections,
Defendant expresses his general dissatisfaction with the outcome in this matter, but he fails to
address, let alone identify error within, the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdictional analysis or conclusion.
See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b) (requiring an objecting party to “specifically identify the portions

of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are made and the basis
for such objections”).

Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court.
Because this Opinion and Order resolves all pending claims in this case, a Judgment will
also be entered. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Further, because this action was filed in forma pauperis,
this Court 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 (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 (ECF No. 20) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Corrected Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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.
This case is closed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

Dated: June 21, 2017

2