Jones #260563 v. Ollis, No. 2:2008cv00155 - Document 10 (W.D. Mich. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 ; signed by EDTN Judge R. Allan Edgar (EDTN Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JESSIE E. JONES #260563, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:08-cv-155 Honorable R. Allan Edgar UNKNOWN OLLIS, Defendants. ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE JUDGE S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge on August 28, 2008. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. The Court received objections from the Plaintiff. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. The Court now finds the objections to be without merit. In his objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of his due process claim because he is not complaining about the loss of property, but the actual denial of due process. Such an objection is nonsensical. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation, Plaintiff s due process claims are properly dismissed. Plaintiff also claims that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of his retaliation claims. However, as noted by the Magistrate Judge in the report and recommendation, Plaintiff s claim of retaliation is conclusory and unsupported by specific factual allegations. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is approved and adopted as the opinion of the court and plaintiff s action will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(b); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). This is a dismissal described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this action would not be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $255 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the three-strikes rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $455 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. Accordingly, should plaintiff seek to appeal this matter to the Sixth Circuit, the appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith. Dated: __________________________ ____________________________________ R. ALLAN EDGAR 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.
