Stacey R. Smith v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., et al.
Stacey R. Smith v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., et al.
Trial Court 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 1357at *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
Reference
- Status
- Unknown