Riddle 597922 v. Iron
Riddle 597922 v. Iron
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER A. RIDDLE,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-468 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING MOSHE IRON,
Defendant. ____________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on May 3, 2024. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, ECF No. 6), recommending that this Court dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 8) to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. Plaintiff’s objection, which merely reiterates his allegations that Defendant made false statements leading to Plaintiff’s conviction, does not identify any error in the Magistrate Judge’s subject-matter jurisdiction analysis or ultimate conclusion that this matter is properly dismissed. Accordingly, the objection is denied, and the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court. A Judgment will also be entered consistent with this Memorandum 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 decision 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). Therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the objection (ECF No. 8) is DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 6) 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 FURTHERORDEREDthatthisCourtcertifiespursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith
Dated: July1, 2024 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANEM. BECKERING United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown