Perry v. Michigan, State of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMIE PHILLIP PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1103
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jamie Phillip Perry, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this
prisoner civil rights action against the State of Michigan, the United States of America, Barry
County, and the City of Niles. 	On April 13, 2026, 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) and 1915A(b) for lack of jurisdiction and/or failure to state any claim
upon which relief may be granted. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s April
27, 2026 objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF Nos. 8 & 11). 1 In accordance with
1 On April 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in the Sixth Circuit from the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 10). 	In general, “[a]n appeal, including an interlocutory appeal,
‘divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’”
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736, 740 (2023) (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer
Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). However, jurisdiction did not transfer with the filing of
Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal because any review of the magistrate judge’s ruling must first be
sought in the district court. See Hoven v. Walgreen Co., 751 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing
Ambrose v. Welch, 729 F.2d 1084, 1085 (6th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) for the determination that
appellate jurisdiction was lacking on these facts); Liu v. Lancer Ins. Co., No. 24-6057, 2025 WL
1490117, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025) (same).
Case 1:26-cv-01103-JMB-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/10/26 Page 1
of 3

2
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de
novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have
been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against the
United States for lack of jurisdiction (R&R, ECF No. 6 at PageID.18–19). The Magistrate Judge
recommends that this Court dismiss his claim against the State of Michigan based on Eleventh
Amendment immunity and/or failure to state a claim (id. at PageID.19). Last, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining § 1983 claims because Plaintiff’s
Complaint is “devoid of any allegation suggesting that his alleged constitutional injuries were the
result of official policies or customs employed by Berrien County or the City of Niles” (id. at
PageID.20).
This Court’s Local Rules require a party objecting to a magistrate judge’s 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). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), in turn, require this
Court to perform de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which objections are made.
In his objections, Plaintiff merely restates his legal positions without referencing the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis, let alone identifying any factual or legal error therein. See ECF No.
8 at PageID.25–27. 	Consequently, Plaintiff’s objections are properly denied. 	Additionally, a
Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. C IV. P. 58; see also
Moniz v. Hines, 92 F. App’x 208, 212 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[A]s both its spirit and structure make
clear, § 1915 does not afford a district court discretion to permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint
Case 1:26-cv-01103-JMB-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/10/26 Page 2
of 3

3
after 	its 	dismissal 	under 	§ 	1915(e)(2).”). 	Last, 	consistent 	with 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
recommendation, this Court also certifies 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 Nos. 8 & 11) 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) and 1915A(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: June 10, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01103-JMB-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/10/26 Page 3
of 3