Kamps v. British Crown Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRUCE H ARVEY K AMPS , 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-1458
v. 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
BRITISH CROWN CORPORATION,
ET AL ., 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Berens’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R), (ECF No. 6), in which she recommended that the action be
dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff objected to the R&R. (ECF No. 7). The objections only
confirm, rather than deny, the central conclusion of the R&R, which is that Plaintiff’s claims
are all rooted in the fantasy realm of sovereign citizen ideology. Rather than rebut the swath
of legal authority cited by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff offers more of the same fiction,
loosely inspired by the concept of law but not amounting to a specific objection to any part
of the R&R. Plaintiff’s objections will be overruled and the R&R will be adopted in full.
I.
After being served with a report and recommendation issued by a magistrate judge, a
party 	has 	fourteen 	days 	to 	file 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	proposed 	findings 	and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de
Case 1:25-cv-01458-PLM-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 1
of 3

2
novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam). An “objection does not oblige the district court to ignore the report and
recommendation.”
Fharmacy Recs. v. Nassar, 465 F. App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). Our
Local Rules require any party objecting to a report and recommendation to “specifically
identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which
objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b);
see also
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that “objections disput[ing] the
correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . .
believed [to be] in error” are too general).
II.
Plaintiff offers fantastical tales about pirates and foreign military occupations. The
only specific objection he raises to anything in the R&R is the “assumption of me being
arrested for a driving offense without facts in evidence.” (ECF No. 7 at PageID.20). Of
course, this is an assumption he confirms was justified in his objections. (
See id. at
PageID.19-20) (describing Plaintiff’s arrest in his car after a police officer requested a drivers
license which Plaintiff failed to produce).
Plaintiff concludes his objections requesting that the Court “honor its contract with
me and reject the biased misrepresentations of my claims” in the R&R. (
Id. at PageID.23).
Plaintiff appears to believe that his payment of the filing fee for his complaint constitutes the
formation of a contract entitling him to success on his claims, no matter how ridiculous. (
See
id. at PageID.19) (“I have a contract with this court to obtain that remedy fully paid in 405
dollars . . . .”). That conclusion is absurd on its face. As to the “biased misrepresentations”
Case 1:25-cv-01458-PLM-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 2
of 3

3
in the R&R, the Court is left to guess which those might be. The objection is thus not specific
enough, and does not warrant
de novo review of anything in the R&R.
See Miller, 50 F.3d at
380.
Of course, Plaintiff does raise his central argument that he is a “lawful person[] of the
Union States,” (ECF No. 7 at PageID.22), and that all existing national, state, and local
governmental entities are corporations which lack sovereignty. In doing so, however, Plaintiff
fails to respond to any of the myriad legal authority the Magistrate Judge cited indicating that
this precise argument is so far removed from reality as to constitute nothing more than a
waste of judicial resources. As an illustration of this, Plaintiff cites
Penhallow v. Doane’s
Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795), not for anything actually in that case, which concerns
federal jurisdiction in prize cases, but for a fabricated quotation which posits that because
governments are “abstractions” they cannot interact with “the tangible.” (ECF No. 7 at
PageID.21). A fake quote establishing a plainly false premise—people take tangible actions
on behalf of abstract entities all the time—hardly gets Plaintiff anywhere.
III.
Plaintiff fails to identify any error in the R&R. His arguments in the objection confirm,
rather than deny, the R&R’s central conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims are rooted in sovereign-
citizen ideology and frivolous. The R&R (ECF No. 6) is thus ADOPTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	January 7, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01458-PLM-SJB ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 3
of 3