Stacey R. Smith v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
• Decided: November 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

STACEY R. SMITH,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1188 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants. _______________________/

ORDER

This is a civil rights action brought by a pro se litigant. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) on October 9, 2025, recommending that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and further recommending, in a footnote, that the Court place Plaintiff on restricted filing status. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on Plaintiff.1 No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s filing history,2 and the Court concludes that Plaintiff has a “history of unsubstantial and vexatious litigation amounting to an abuse of the permission granted” to “proceed as a pauper in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” See Atchison v. Farrell,

1 Plaintiff is the only party that has appeared in the case at this time.

2 See, e.g., Smith v. Spartannash Co., No. 1:25-CV-1187, 2025 WL 3068018 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2025); Smith v. McCormack, No. 1:21-CV-78, 2021 WL 808767 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2021); Smith v. United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., No. 1:22-CV-788, 2023 WL 34554 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 2023); Smith v. Buth, No. 1:16-CV-1381, 2017 WL 359465 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 25, 2017). 230 F.3d 1357 at *2 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 260–61 (6th Cir. 1992)). Plaintiff is hereby placed on notice that the Court may properly add Plaintiff to the Restricted Filer list and revoke his privilege to proceed in forma pauperis in the future if he continues to file complaints amounting to “unsubstantial and vexatious litigation.” Id. Accordingly:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 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 because Plaintiff failed to file any objections. 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). A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order.

Dated: November 12, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge