UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGUS W. MCCONNELL,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-851 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING GOOGLE, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Angus W. McConnell, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this matter on July 29, 2025 against Google, Elon Musk, and Microsoft. On August 6, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to

(e)(2) on grounds that Plaintiff fails to allege the existence of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and, regardless, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). For the following reasons, the Court denies the objections.

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) require this Court to perform de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. In his objections, Plaintiff characterizes the Report and Recommendation as “defamatory” and “unjustified” and requests a full investigation and continuation of his case (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 10 at PageID.44, 47). However, Plaintiff does not identify any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Consequently, his objections are properly denied, and the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted. A Judgment will also be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P.58. For the above reasons, this Court also certifies, consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, that an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith. See

(a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth,

, 610–11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,

, 211–12 (2007). Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 10) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) 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) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Deny Defendants’ Motion to

Change Venue” (ECF No. 8, as supplemented by ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED as moot. 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 29, 2025 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge