Thomas v. Boysen et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 ; signed by District Judge Jane M. Beckering (lep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COURTNEY THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:24-cv-1207
v.
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
DAVID BOYSEN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated an action in state court against Defendants,
which Defendants removed to this Court. See Thomas v. Boysen et al., 1:23-cv-996-JMB-SJB.
The 2023 case was dismissed on April 17, 2024. On November 14, 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, initiated this action with the filing of a Complaint in this Court against the same Defendants
(ECF No. 1). On November 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 8). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 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 Memorandum Opinion and Order.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s instant claims are barred by the doctrine
of claim preclusion (R&R, ECF No. 7 at PageID.18–20). In his objections, Plaintiff opines that
this Court should allow him to present his current claims as he “now has a better understanding of
how to present the facts and how the facts correlate to the law sited [sic]” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 8 at
PageID.24–26). Plaintiff’s objections demonstrate only his disagreement with the result in this
case. He fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or
ultimate conclusion.
Accordingly, the Court will approve and adopt the Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court.
Additionally, a Judgment will be entered consistent with this Memorandum 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) and consistent with the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 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 Objections (ECF No. 8) are DENIED and the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 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 this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
Dated: January 28, 2025
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?