Hollingsworth v. Michigan State University et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT P. HOLLINGSWORTH, III,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-01932
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this action on December 30, 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. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The present lawsuit is for all practical purposes a continuation of two previous
actions Plaintiff unsuccessfully pursued in this Court, arising from the same claims and
factual allegations. See Hollingsworth v Michigan State University, 1:24-cv-00410
(W.D. Mich.); see also Hollingsworth v Michigan State University, 1:24-cv-01259 (W.D.
Mich.).
Case 1:25-cv-01932-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 1
of 5

-2-
In each action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant subjected him to unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and various other state and federal provisions. The Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s first action for failure to state a claim. See Hollingsworth v
Michigan State University, 1:24-cv-00410, ECF No. 10, 12 (W.D. Mich.). The Court
dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s second action for failure to state a claim or,
alternatively, on res judicata grounds. See Hollingsworth v Michigan State University,
1:24-cv-01259, ECF No. 8, 9, 10 (W.D. Mich.). Plaintiff now returns, asserting the
same claims based on the same incidents. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3).
ANALYSIS
Claim preclusion, often referred to as res judicata, “prevents parties from
relitigating the same claim or cause of action if the latter suit arises from the same
transaction or involves a common nucleus of operative facts.” Brownback v. King, 592
U.S. 209, 215 n.3 (2021). The Court recognizes that res judicata is “usually an
affirmative defense that a defendant must raise”; however, “federal courts may dismiss
an action sua sponte on res judicata grounds under ‘special circumstances,’ ” such as
when “a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented” or for “the
avoidance of unnecessary judicial waste.” Bush v. Lumileds, LLC, 2022 WL 3337143
at *2 (E.D. Mich., June 15, 2022) (citations omitted).
Claim preclusion bars a claim where four elements are satisfied: (1) a final
decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a subsequent action
Case 1:25-cv-01932-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 2
of 5

-3-
between the same parties or their privies; (3) an issue in the subsequent action that
was litigated or that should have been litigated in the prior action; and (4) an identity
of the causes of action, satisfied where “the claims arose out of the same transaction or
series of transactions” or “the claims arose out of the same core of operative facts.”
Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 537 F.3d 565, 580 (6th Cir. 2008). See, e.g., Trustees
of Operating Engineers Local 324 Pension Fund v. Bourdow Contracting, Inc., 919 F.3d
368, 380-83 (6th Cir. 2019). All four factors are satisfied presently. This Court
entered final decisions on Plaintiff’s prior actions. The present action is asserted
against the same defendant and seeks to assert claims that Plaintiff raised in his
previous actions. Finally, the claims asserted in the present action arise out of the
same core of operative facts.
Where a claim is barred by res judicata, “the weight of authority supports
dismissal for failure to state a claim.” Turner v. DeJoy, 2022 WL 1817752 at *4 (W.D.
Tenn., Mar. 15, 2022) (citations omitted); see also, Marshall v. Snider-Blake Personnel,
2022 WL 16780688 at *5 (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 8, 2022) (citations omitted). Furthermore,
“res judicata is an appropriate basis to dismiss for failure to state a claim during the
initial screening of a complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).” Marshall, 2022 WL
16780688 at *5 (citations omitted); Turner, 2022 WL 1817752 at *4 (same).
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that the
present action be dismissed.
Case 1:25-cv-01932-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 3
of 5

-4-
Additionally, the Court reminds Plaintiff that “[p]roceeding IFP is a privilege,
and not a right.” Bey v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB, No. 1:25-cv-1299, 2025 WL
2462451, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2025) (citing Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603
(6th Cir. 1998)). And “[i]t is well-settled that a plaintiff’s pro se status does not give
him a license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and
abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Thanedar v. Time Warner, Inc., 352 F.App’x.
891, 900 (5th Cir. 2009). A court may deny IFP status or revoke it in a pending action
when a litigant has engaged in frivolous, harassing, and abusive litigation. See In re
McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184-85, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Hurt v. Soc.
Sec. Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Tingler v. Maike, No. 3:23-cv-788, 2023
WL 4564383, at *3 (N.D. Ohio July 17, 2023).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed on res judicata grounds. For the same reasons the
undersigned makes these recommendations, the undersigned further recommends
that an appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would not be in good faith. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
Case 1:25-cv-01932-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 4
of 5

-5-
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); see also
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 9, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01932-JMB-PJG ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 5
of 5