Manning v. Unknown Party

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

JEREMIAH MANNING,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-131 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING UNKNOWN PARTY,

Defendant. ____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 16, 2025 with a letter about his state court criminal proceeding. The letter was docketed as a Complaint. On July 28, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s July 14, 2025 letter, which was docketed as a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 9), and his August 11, 2025 letter, which was docketed as his objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), this Court is required to perform de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which an objection is made. Here, Plaintiff does not address—let alone demonstrate error in—the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the allegations in his Complaint. Therefore, the Court denies the objection and dismisses as moot his motion for appointment of counsel. Additionally, a Judgment will be entered consistent with this 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) 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 Objection (ECF No. 12) is DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 11) 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)(B) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED 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.

Dated: August 26, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge