UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JAMES DEWAYNE ASHLEY, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-673 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING CITY OF BATTLE CREEK and UNKNOWN PARTIES, Defendants. ____________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on June 18, 2025 with the filing of a Complaint. On June 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) on grounds that the Complaint fails to state any claim on which relief may be granted. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7). In accordance with

(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 objection has been made. The Court denies the objection and issues this Opinion and Order. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff did not name any individual defendants as parties in the Complaint and that Plaintiff did not allege sufficient factual matter to state a claim against the City of Battle Creek (R&R, ECF No. 6 at PageID.173–174). In his Objection, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge did “not fully consider the constitutional violations committed by multiple actors” and failed to address the “over 100 pages of exhibits” that Plaintiff submitted with his Complaint (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 7 at PageID.176–177). Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. The Magistrate Judge expressly and carefully considered not only the sixteen paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Complaint but also his attached exhibits. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Objection fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Therefore, the Objection is

properly denied. 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

(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

(6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,

, 211–12 (2007). Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 7) are 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

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Dated: August 22, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge