Williams v. Secretary of State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROOSEVELT LASHAWN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1405
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil case with the filing
of a “Petition for Compliance,” seeking an order directing the Secretary of State to recognize
Plaintiff as a “Non-Citizen National,” to correct his nationality by publishing the document
attached to his petition—a so-called “Declaration/Affidavit of Correction of Status of Nationality”
affirming that he is a “Private American National Citizen/Non-Citizen National”—in the Federal
Register, and to return a copy of his “Declaration/Affidavit of Correction of Status of Nationality”
to him (ECF No. 1 at PageID.1–2). On November 21, 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) on grounds that the action is frivolous. The matter is presently before
the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF Nos. 8 & 11). 	In
accordance with 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.
Case 1:25-cv-01405-JMB-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 1
of 2

2
Plaintiff’s objections take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s observation that his action is
premised on some form of sovereign citizen ideology (Pl. Objs., ECF No. 8, referencing R&R,
ECF No. 6 at PageID.13–15). Plaintiff contends that he has been “profiled” (Pl. Objs., ECF No.
8 at PageID.38). But Plaintiff does not identify any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s
thorough analysis of the merits of his petition or her ultimate conclusion that the petition “lacks an
arguable basis in fact or law.” See R&R, ECF No. 6 at PageID.15–17. Accordingly, his objections
are properly denied, and the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted as the Opinion
of the Court. 	Additionally, a Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order.
See FED. R. C IV. P. 58. 	Last, for the above reasons, and because this action was filed in forma
pauperis, 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).
Therefore:
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 this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) 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 13, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01405-JMB-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 2
of 2