Bartlett v. Allegan County Court et al, No. 1:2018cv00183 - Document 42 (W.D. Mich. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 ; Plaintiff's motions 17 , 20 , 25 , 27 , 29 , and 36 are DENIED as moot; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

Download PDF
Bartlett v. Allegan County Court et al Doc. 42 Case 1:18-cv-00183-JTN-ESC ECF No. 42 filed 11/30/18 PageID.776 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ANGEL BARTLETT, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-183 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF ALLEGAN COUNTY COURT, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against the Allegan County Court, Allegan County Sheriff’s Department, Allegan Police, seven named individuals, and an unknown number of Unknown Parties. Plaintiff’s primary claim is that Defendants subjected her to an improper personal protection order. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (ECF No. 8). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 9) to the Report and Recommendation. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), this Court must perform de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. An objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Plaintiff’s Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:18-cv-00183-JTN-ESC ECF No. 42 filed 11/30/18 PageID.777 Page 2 of 2 objections wholly fail to comply with the Local Rule because they merely continue the arguments advanced in the original complaint and numerous supplements. Plaintiff has failed to identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or ultimate conclusion. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. 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 decision 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 Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 9) are DENIED, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 8) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 17, 20, 25, 27, 29 & 36) are DENIED as moot. 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/ Janet T. Neff Dated: November 30, 2018 JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.