Harmon v. Michigan, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CASEY HARMON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1457
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
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.
Case 1:25-cv-01457-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 1
of 2

2
Additionally, a Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See F ED .
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
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01457-JMB-MV ECF No. 11, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/23/26 Page 2
of 2