Damien D. Pugh v. Janet A. Panozzo

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAMIEN D. PUGH,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-327 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING JANET A. PANOZZO,

Defendant. ____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Defendant. On October 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24). 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 Opinion and Order. The Magistrate Judge described the procedural history of the case and determined that (1) Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders is willful and manifests bad faith; (2) Plaintiff’s conduct unfairly prejudices Defendant’s ability to defend against Plaintiff’s claims; (3) Plaintiff was expressly and repeatedly warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Orders may result in dismissal of his claims; and (4) a sanction other than dismissal is insufficient (R&R, ECF No. 23 at PageID.82). In his objections, Plaintiff supplies excerpts from the state law he alleges that Defendant violated, and he inaccurately contends that the Rule 16 scheduling conference was “moot” because “both parties … have to agree to participate in the mediation” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 24 at PageID.85– 86). In short, Plaintiff does not meaningfully interact with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, let alone demonstrate any factual or legal error therein. Therefore, the objections are properly denied.

A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, this Court also 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, 610–11 (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. 24) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 23) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE 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. Dated: October 27, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge