Casey Harmon v. State of Michigan, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

CASEY HARMON, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-1457 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff initiated this case in November 2025 with the filing of a Complaint against several Defendants, alleging civil rights claims arising from his criminal preliminary examination proceeding in state court. On December 26, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court is obliged to perform de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Plaintiff’s objections do not address—let alone reveal error in—the bases for dismissal discussed by the Magistrate Judge.

Rather, in his “objections” to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff describes additional concerns he has about the criminal proceeding (ECF No. 10 at PageID.46–47). Because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion, the Report and Recommendation will be approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

Additionally, 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 will also certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment 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).

Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 10) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 8) 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 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.

Dated: February 23, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge