Blocker v. Michigan, State of

Opinion

WUNESITTEEDR NST DAITSTERS IDCITS TORFI MCTIC CHOIUGRATN SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY BLOCKER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:21-cv-467 v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff Corey Blocker, proceeding in forma pauperis, asserts an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various federal and State entities, officials, and agencies. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a magistrate judge screened the complaint and determined that Blocker’s allegations relate to purportedly stolen tax returns and COVID relief funds. (R&R 3, ECF No. 11.) The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim because Blocker “asserted nothing more than unsubstantiated conclusions and [] failed to allege any facts which, if proven, would entitle him to relief.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) Blocker filed a “Notice of Appeal.” (ECF No. 14.) The Court could construe the filing as objections to the R&R, but that would be of little help. The document is impenetrable. Blocker complains that courts have been dismissing his cases before defendants even appear. Most of the rest of his writing focuses on the purported health risks of carbon dioxide and the government’s misuse of 5G “as a weapon to make people sick.” If the Court treats this filing as Blocker’s objections to the R&R, it would deny the objections because it wholly fails to address the substance of the R&R. If the Court were to treat it as an appeal to the Court, then Blocker has failed to timely object to the R&R. Following either R&R waives the right to appeal, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981), the Court will construe Blocker’s filing as objections to the R&R. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (ECF No. 14) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Consistent with the R&R’s recommendation, the Court finds that an appeal of this matter would be frivolous and certifies that an appeal in this matter would not be in good faith. A judgment will enter consistent with this Order.

Dated: September 27, 2021 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE