Mauro Bey v. Santander Consumer USA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMEER SIRAJ MAURO BEY,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-1537
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 24, 2025. (ECF No. 1). The Court
permitted Plaintiff to proceed as a pauper (ECF No. 5) and reviewed Plaintiff’s
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it was frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On
December 2, 2025, the Court afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint.
(ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on December 15, 2025. (ECF
No. 8). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed and this action terminated.
ANALYSIS
A claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted unless the “[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right for relief above
the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). As the Supreme Court has
held, to avoid dismissal, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted
Case 1:25-cv-01537-PLM-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 1
of 5

-2-
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). This plausibility standard “is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” If the complaint simply pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a
defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of
‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. As the Court further observed:
Two working principles underlie our decision in Twombly. First, the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice . . . Rule 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the
hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock
the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than
conclusions. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for
relief survives a motion to dismiss . . . . Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be
a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense. But where the well pleaded facts
do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not “show[n]”—“that the
pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 678-79 (internal citations omitted).
In his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following. (ECF No. 8).
On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff received a statement with an undisclosed balance amount
from Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (ECF No. 8, PageID.50). On
July 11, 2025, Plaintiff mailed a debt validation letter and a cease-and-desist order,
requesting copies of his alleged balance and a response within thirty days. (Id.).
On July 21, 2025, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Santander Consumer
Case 1:25-cv-01537-PLM-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 2
of 5

-3-
USA, Inc., stating that “they [were] unable to process [his] dispute.” (Id.). On
July 29, 2025, Plaintiff responded “with a writ that addressed the previous letter,”
giving Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 21 days to respond. (Id.). On
August 27, 2025, after receiving no response from Defendant Santander Consumer
USA, Inc., Plaintiff “submitted” a “notice of intent to sue upon failure to validate the
debt.” (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that his rights under Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, were violated because Defendants never lent him money,
“ignore[d] the debt validation letter,” and failed to produce “the receipt of the face
amount of the note.” (ECF No. 8, PageID.50-51).
In addition to the only discernable claim above, Plaintiff submitted seven pages
of distracting irrelevant assertions and unsupported legal conclusions. For example,
Plaintiff states that “[j]urisdiction of this court is invoked under The Zodiac
Constitution” (ECF No. 8, PageID.48) and that he is “bound squarely affirmed to the
Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1787 superseded by the Treaty of Peace and
Friendship of 1836 between Morocco and the United States” (ECF No. 8, PageID.49).
Likewise, Plaintiff states that “gold and silver is [sic] the only form of lawful money
in accordance with the United States Constitution.” (ECF No. 8, PageID.51).
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants commit “human rights violations” and
“conspire[ed] against [his] rights,” but he provides no factual allegations to support
these claims. (ECF No. 8, PageID.52).
Case 1:25-cv-01537-PLM-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 3
of 5

-4-
Although Plaintiff timely filed his first amended complaint, he has again failed
to allege sufficient facts to state a viable claim by resubmitting an amended complaint
that suffers from the same deficiencies as his initial complaint. Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff’s amended claim
for relief is neither short nor plain but overwhelmed with irrelevant assertions and
unsupported legal conclusions.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
first amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. For the same
reasons the undersigned makes these recommendations, the undersigned finds that
an appeal of such would be frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). Accordingly, the undersigned further recommends that an appeal of this
matter by Plaintiff would not be in good faith.
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); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Case 1:25-cv-01537-PLM-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 4
of 5

-5-
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: January 28, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01537-PLM-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/28/26 Page 5
of 5