Stinson v. Mark Yates and Wall & Associates, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
MARK T. STINSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 24-cv-02077-SHM-tmp
)
MARK YATES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court are several motions from pro se plaintiff
Mark T. Stinson, including “Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis” filed on November 3, 2025 (ECF No. 59); “Motion for
Default Judgment” filed on November 10, 2025 (ECF No. 60); “Motion
for Entry of Default” filed on November 18, 2025 (ECF No. 61);
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default, Default Judgment,
Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Denying
Default Judgment” filed on December 1, 2025 (ECF No. 2); and
“Motion to Compel Conferral and/or Motion for Sanctions Against
Defendants for Failure to Respond and Denial of Conferral” filed
on December 8, 2025 (ECF No. 63).1 The undersigned recommends that
these motions be denied.
1Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case has been
referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for
Case 2:24-cv-02077-SHM-tmp Document 65 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

- 2 -
Stinson’s complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
“a broad conspiracy between the federal judge (Judge Fowlkes), the
federal prosecutors (Griffin and Brooks), his court-appointed
attorneys (Quinn and Stegall), and his retained defense attorney
(Miller)[,]” who were all involved in the criminal case against
him, and “the state court judge (Chancellor Jenkins) and his
retained attorneys (Wilkins and Sanders) in a contemporaneous
state court proceeding related to Stinson’s business.” (ECF No. 41
at PageID 121.) On August 5, 2025, the undersigned entered a Report
and Recommendation recommending that Stinson’s complaint be
dismissed under Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999). (ECF
No. 41 at PageID 119.) A court may “sua sponte dismiss a complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a
complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial,
frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.”
Apple, 183 F.3d at 479 (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,
536-37 (1974); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir.
1988)); see also Rice v. Vill. of Johnstown, 30 F.4th 584, 598
(6th Cir. 2022). In the August 5 Report and Recommendation, the
undersigned determined that Stinson’s complaint warranted Apple v.
management of all pretrial matters for determination or report and
recommendation, as appropriate.
Case 2:24-cv-02077-SHM-tmp Document 65 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

- 3 -
Glenn sua sponte dismissal because his “allegations of a broad
conspiracy between federal and state court judges, federal
prosecutors, and his attorneys to send him to jail so that they
could steal his business plans for an online food delivery service
are ‘totally implausible,’” thus depriving the court of subject
matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 41 at PageID 127.) Additionally, the
undersigned found that the complaint is barred under res judicata.
(Id.) The undersigned therefore concluded Stinson’s complaint
should be dismissed. (Id. at PageID 131.) This analysis was
reinforced in another report and recommendation on September 4,
2025, where the undersigned again recommended dismissal of
Stinson’s complaint. (ECF No. 50.)
Regarding plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis, the undersigned finds the request moot. When a plaintiff
has already paid the initial filing fee “well before requesting
IFP status[,]” applications may be denied as moot. Hoeltzel v.
Pillsbury, No. 19-12328, 2020 WL 3717331 at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3,
2020). Stinson paid the filing fee at the commencement of
litigation. (ECF No. 5.) Thus, he may not now retroactively request
in forma pauperis status.
As for his other motions, the pending report and
recommendations, the undersigned recommends that Stinson’s Motions
all be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Case 2:24-cv-02077-SHM-tmp Document 65 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

- 4 -
s/Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
December 19, 2025
Date
NOTICE
WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, ANY PARTY MAY SERVE AND FILE
SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY PARTY MAY RESPOND TO ANOTHER PARTY’S
OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A
COPY. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); L.R.
72.1(g)(2). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS,
EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL
Case 2:24-cv-02077-SHM-tmp Document 65 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>