Smith #619752 v. Brown et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
_________
ASHTON A. SMITH #619752,
Plaintiff,
v.
DALE BONN, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Hon. Jane M. Beckering
Case No. 1:25-cv-00379
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. (ECF
No. 62). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that
Plaintiff’s motion be denied.
As an initial matter, it is unclear “whether magistrate judges have the
authority to decide pretrial motions for Rule 11 sanctions.” Annabel v. Erichsen,
No. 15-10345, 2018 WL 4854098, at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 1, 2018), report and
recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3751445 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2018).
“Nevertheless, the prudential practice that has developed throughout this circuit is
to treat motions for Rule 11 sanctions as dispositive in both the pretrial and post-
judgment context.” Id.; see also United States v. Martin, No. 25-5541, 2025 WL
2531045, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (Section 636(b)(3) “allows a district court to
refer non-dispositive motions that are not identified in § 636(b)(1)(B) to a magistrate
Case 1:25-cv-00379-JMB-PJG ECF No. 71, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/26/26 Page 1
of 3

2
judge for a recommendation as long as a district judge ultimately adjudicates and
resolves the motion under the procedures in § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).”). Accordingly,
the undersigned proceeds by Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff moves for a sanction of $2,400 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 11(c) against Attorney Jennifer Foster. (ECF No. 62). Plaintiff contends
that Attorney Foster should be sanctioned because she filed a motion to dismiss on
the basis that Plaintiff refused to be deposed even though Plaintiff did not receive
notice of his deposition and he had a misconduct hearing at the time of his scheduled
deposition. (Id.).
Plaintiff cannot rely on Rule 11 for an award of sanctions because there is no
indication in the docket report that he previously complied with the safe harbor
provisions of Rule 11(c)(2), which requires that a party seeking sanctions under
Rule 11(c) first serve its motion on the opposing party before filing it with the Court
and provide 21 days to withdraw the challenged pleading or paper. FED. R. CIV.
P. 11(c)(2). Plaintiff’s “[f]ailure to comply with the safe-harbor provision precludes”
the Court from “imposing sanctions.” Penn, LLC v. Prosper Bus. Dev. Corp., 773 F.3d
764, 767 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
motion for sanctions be DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions be denied. For the same reasons the undersigned
makes these recommendations, the undersigned further recommends that an
Case 1:25-cv-00379-JMB-PJG ECF No. 71, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/26/26 Page 2
of 3

3
appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would not be in good faith. Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the
Clerk of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Date: May 26, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00379-JMB-PJG ECF No. 71, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/26/26 Page 3
of 3