Owen W. Barnaby v. Michigan State Government, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: November 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01146
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

OWEN W. BARNABY,

Plaintiff, Hon. Robert J. Jonker

v. Case No. 1:22-cv-1146

MICHIGAN STATE GOVERNMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Presently before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) are Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from the District Court’s July 30, 2024 Order and Judgment (ECF No. 227) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (ECF No. 229.) First, although no amount of pages can justify setting aside the Court’s July 30, 2024 Order and Judgment, I recommend that the Court GRANT Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file excess pages. Second, I recommend that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion. My July 9, 2024 Report and Recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 213) set forth numerous grounds for dismissing all claims and Defendants in this action, the Court adopted the R&R over Plaintiff’s 67-pages of Objections and entered Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 219 and 220), and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. (ECF Nos. 224 and 225.) There is nothing more to be said about this case. Plaintiff ignores the identified grounds for dismissal and regurgitates the same previously-rejected arguments. Moreover, Plaintiff’s only new argument—that I had a conflict of interest—is not only frivolous, but should have been raised during the prior proceedings. Last, the Court previously adopted a filing restriction precluding Plaintiff from filing any future action pertaining in any manner to (1) the Berrien County parcels (the Niles parcel and the Benton Harbor parcels); (2) the related judgments of foreclosure concerning those parcels; or (3) any previous action in this Court concerning those matters. (ECF No. 219 at PageID.3661.) I recommend that the Court expand that restriction to encompass future filings in the present action.

For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 229), deny his Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 27), and expand the previous filing restriction as set forth above.

Dated: November 12, 2025 /s/ Sally J. Berens SALLY J. BERENS U.S. Magistrate Judge

NOTICE OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).