Weaver #182171 v. Newaygo County 27th Circuit Court et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL WEAVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEWAYGO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, et
al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-594
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action filed in forma pauperis and pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (see Compl., ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations arising from various
substantive and procedural deficiencies in his state court criminal matters (see generally id.). This
matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (see R&R,
ECF No. 6). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Objection to Magistrates [sic] Report and
Recommendation,” in which filing he raises several arguments that he styles as “objections” (see
Obj., ECF No. 9). 	In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3), the
Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections
have been made. 	As discussed in greater detail below, Plaintiff’s objections largely fail to
“specifically identify” the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which they apply in
violation of this Court’s rules. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). The Court denies the objections
and issues this Opinion and Order.
Case 1:25-cv-00594-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 1
of 4

2
First, Plaintiff “objects” that “a great and evil wrong has been perpetrated” by the
“Newaygo County’s 27th Circuit Court,” and thus his case should not be dismissed (Obj., ECF
No. 9 at PageID.114). Plaintiff does not engage with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or identify
legal or factual error. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). This objection is denied.
Second, Plaintiff “objects” that his Complaint went from “being accepted as true” to being
merely “liberally construed” (Obj., ECF No. 9 at PageID.114). 	Plaintiff conflates the legal
standard applicable to a pro se filing with the distinct legal standard applicable to a motion to
dismiss. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (discussing pro se pleadings); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (discussing the standard for dismissing an in forma pauperis
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007)
(discussing the pleading standard applicable to a motion to dismiss). This objection is denied.
Third, Plaintiff “objects” that the concept of “absolute immunity” is too broad and could
lead to absurd results (Obj., ECF No. 9 at PageID.114). Plaintiff identifies no legal authority to
support his position, and he does not engage with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. See W.D. Mich.
LCivR 72.3(b). This objection is denied.
Fourth, Plaintiff “objects” that “President Trump” and a number of executive officials “are
in the process of holding a whole bunch of people accountable for their” actions, and he should
similarly be permitted to hold the “system” accountable (Obj., ECF No. 9 at PageID.115).
Plaintiff, however, does not engage with the Magistrate Judge’s explanation that federal courts
abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal matters absent extraordinary circumstances
not present here. See R&R, ECF No. 6 at PageID.85–86 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
44–55 (1971)); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Plaintiff fails to identify any factual or legal error by
the Magistrate Judge and his objection is denied.
Case 1:25-cv-00594-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 2
of 4

3
Fifth, Plaintiff “objects” that he should have received appointed counsel (Obj., ECF No. 9
at PageID.115). Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel has been denied in a separate Order
(Order Denying Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 8). Plaintiff has not identified a “palpable
defect” in that Order. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.4(a) (limiting motions for reconsideration to those
that can identify a “palpable defect” in a court’s prior ruling). This objection is denied.
Sixth, Plaintiff “objects” that although he agrees with “Heck v. Humphrey,” he should
nevertheless be allowed to “get the process started for discovery and depositions” regarding the
alleged violations that took place in his state court criminal proceedings (Obj., ECF No. 9 at
PageID.115). The Court understands the importance of these matters to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
sense of urgency. That said, Plaintiff fails to engage with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or cite
authority entitling him to the relief that he requests. 	See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	This
objection is denied.
Last, Plaintiff “objects” that the Court should wait until certain proceedings in his criminal
case have concluded to make a decision in this matter (Obj., ECF No. 9 at PageID.115–116).
Plaintiff cites no authority to justify this request, and the Court denies the objection.
In sum, Plaintiff’s arguments fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or conclusion. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this
Opinion and Order. See FED . R. C IV. P. 58. Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, 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. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled
on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211–12 (2007).
Case 1:25-cv-00594-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 3
of 4

4
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 9) 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 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: November 10, 2025
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-00594-JMB-PJG ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/10/25 Page 4
of 4