Broom #691462 v. Hallacy et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
QUENTIN JAMES BROOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN A. HALLACY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-820
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action—filed in forma pauperis—that involves various
challenges raised by Plaintiff to his state court criminal proceedings and resulting incarceration on
a felony firearms offense. Defendants moved to dismiss (ECF No. 9) and Plaintiff moved for leave
to amend (see ECF Nos. 11 & 12). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motions
for leave to amend (ECF Nos. 11 & 12), strike Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot (ECF No.
9), deny Plaintiff’s motions for miscellaneous relief (ECF No. 16 and 17), dismiss Plaintiff’s
federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) given Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, and
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.1
1 The Report and Recommendation liberally construes Plaintiff’s prolix and largely unintelligible
complaint, along with his proposed amendments, as an attempt to assert claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (R&R, ECF No. 20). Plaintiff does not specifically object to this characterization of his
pleadings—to the contrary, he affirmatively represents that his amended pleadings raise a “federal
question” (see, e.g., ECF No. 11 at PageID.66 and ECF No. 12 at PageID.118). That said, the
Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any state law claims to the extent Plaintiff asserts them (see R&R, ECF No. 20).
Case 1:25-cv-00820-JMB-MV ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 1
of 5

2
This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation. 	In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and F ED. 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. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the objections and adopt the
Report and Recommendation.
After the Magistrate Judge entered the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20),
Plaintiff submitted two filings, one entitled “Objection Letter; Demand Letter; Admissible
Evidence” (ECF No. 21) and one entitled “Brief in Support of Plaintiff(s) Objection” (ECF No.
22). 	The Court has carefully reviewed these submissions and concludes that Plaintiff’s
“objections” lack merit for the following reasons.
First, 	Plaintiff 	fails 	to 	“specifically 	identify” 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation to which his objections apply, violating this Court’s rules. 	See W.D. Mich.
LCivR 72.3(b); Miller v. William Beaumont Hosp., 121 F.4th 556, 558 (6th Cir. 2024) (noting that
a district court’s “local rules carry the force of law”). Given this deficiency, Plaintiff is unable to
intelligibly identify any legal or factual error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. See id.
Second, to “the extent that [Plaintiff] simply repeats [his] earlier arguments, without
specifically pointing to errors in the magistrate judge’s R & R, [he] has not properly objected and
the R & R will stand.” Pratt v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:10-CV-438, 2012 WL 5844969, at *3
(W.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2012); Maxwell v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-404, 2014 WL
4983561, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2014) (noting that if a plaintiff’s “objections merely reargue
his general claims, they are not proper objections to the Report and Recommendation”); Anderson
v. Prelesnik, No. 1:08-CV-250, 2010 WL 1254571, at *7 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2010) (“[I]t is well
settled that a party objecting to an R & R may not simply [restate] prior filings[.]”).
Case 1:25-cv-00820-JMB-MV ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 2
of 5

3
Third, in the few instances where Plaintiff does specifically refer to the Magistrate Judge,
Plaintiff’s unintelligible, conclusory arguments fail to identify factual or legal error in the Report
and Recommendation, and the Court concludes that these “objections” lack merit. See, e.g., Obj.,
ECF No. 22 at PageID.257 (“U.S. Magistrate MaArten [sic] Vermaat fails to state a sufficient
claim of why the Circuit Court Judge John Allen Hallacy, has the Judicial Immunity to Breach the
Contract agreed upon by the 10th Judicial District of Michigan District Court Judge Paul K.
Beardslee[.]”); cf. Anderson, 2010 WL 1254571 at *7 (“This conclusory and difficult-to-follow
objection is unavailing[.]”); Maxwell, 2014 WL 4983561 at *3 (“Plaintiff’s objection to the
‘overall’ Report and Recommendation is improper.”).
In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s submissions fail to properly preserve objections
to the Report and Recommendation, and even if they did, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
failed to identify any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion that
Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for relief on his federal claims. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court also notes that
Plaintiff has already been granted the opportunity to amend his complaint (see, e.g., ECF Nos. 11,
12, 20, 23). No further motion to amend is pending. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s federal
claims should be dismissed with prejudice given these facts. 	See Golf Vill. N., LLC v. City of
Powell, Ohio, 14 F.4th 611, 624 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that a district court does not abuse its
discretion in dismissing an amended complaint with prejudice where a plaintiff does not move for
leave to file a second amended complaint); Crosby v. Twitter, Inc., 921 F.3d 617, 627–28 (6th Cir.
2019) (same); Stewart v. IHT Ins. Agency Grp., LLC, 990 F.3d 455, 457 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Dismissal
with prejudice and without leave to amend is . . . appropriate when it is clear . . . that the complaint
Case 1:25-cv-00820-JMB-MV ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 3
of 5

4
could not be saved by an amendment.”); CNH Am. LLC, 645 F.3d 785, 795 (6th Cir. 2011)
(affirming dismissal with prejudice of initial complaint).
Given that the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court will concomitantly
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims and makes no
assessment of their merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict courts may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 952
(6th Cir. 2010) (“When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations
usually will point to dismissing the state law claims[.]”). See, e.g., Brooks v. Rothe, 577 F.3d 701,
709 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Upon dismissing [plaintiff’s] federal claims, the district court properly
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [the] remaining state-law claims.”).
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the
Court. 	A Judgment will enter consistent with this Opinion and Order. 	See FED. R. C IV. P. 58.
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 decision would not be taken in good faith. 	See McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), rev’d on other grounds as stated in Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211–12 (2007).
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 21 & 22) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend (ECF No. 11 & 12) are
GRANTED.
Case 1:25-cv-00820-JMB-MV ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 4
of 5

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is
STRICKEN AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Proceed (ECF No.
16) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Overrule Motion to Dismiss and
to Order Prosecutor to Certify Charge (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s operative complaint is DISMISSED IN
PART WITH PREJUDICE as to his federal claims given his failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and DISMISSED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to his state-law
claims given that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
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. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,
114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997), rev’d on other grounds as stated in Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S.
199, 203 (2007).
Dated: February 17, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-00820-JMB-MV ECF No. 24, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 5
of 5