Ritchard v. Sniegowski et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES J. RITCHARD,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:25-cv-1236
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
SUSAN SNIEGOWSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
CHARLES J. RITCHARD,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:26-cv-364
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
SUSAN SNIEGOWSKI, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in each of
these cases (No. 1:25-cv-1236, ECF No. 105; No. 1:26-cv-364, ECF No. 7) and Plaintiff Ritchard’s
Objections to each Report and Recommendation (No. 1:25-cv-1236, ECF No. 109; No. 1:26-cv-
364, ECF No. 8). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected
to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the
magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it
justified.” 12 WRIGHT, M ILLER , & M ARCUS , FEDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381
(2d ed. 1997). 	Specifically, the Rules provide that:
Case 1:26-cv-00364-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 1
of 5

2
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. 	The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.
FED R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
In these two related pro se cases, Plaintiff Ritchard strings together years of political and
personal grievances and attempts to spin them into viable federal causes of action against more
than a dozen defendants, with many named in both cases. 	He fails to do so. 	As Magistrate Judge
Green 	correctly 	concluded 	in 	his 	Reports 	and 	Recommendations, 	Ritchard’s 	claims 	are
procedurally defective, substantively meritless, or both. 	On de novo review, the Court agrees that
both cases must be dismissed for reasons detailed by the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff’s objections do not address the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in any meaningful
way. 	Instead, they unspool in even more extraneous detail than the original Complaints a
convoluted story of personal and political grievances. 	Plaintiff identifies as a staunch Republican
who at one time held leadership positions in the Oceana County Republican Party, as well as public
office as Chair of the Oceana County Board of Canvassers. 	This all began to unravel in the wake
of the 2020 election, which plaintiff believes President Trump won. 	Plaintiff was suspended and
ultimately removed from his office of Canvasser for suggesting he would not fulfill the essential
duty of Canvasser unless the State implemented his conditions for election law changes.1 This
ended his career in public office. His work in Republican Party politics also began to sour when
1 Plaintiff sued the Oceana Board of Commissioners and other County officials over his removal. 	The
parties settled in mediation and agreed to entry of an order dismissing the case with prejudice and without
costs. 	See Ritchard v. Anderson, No. 1:21-cv-400, ECF No. 30 (W.D. Mich. May 12, 2021).
Case 1:26-cv-00364-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 2
of 5

3
he crossed swords with another Party activist, Bree Moeggenberg, over who should be Chair of
the Michigan GOP. 	Plaintiff’s preferred candidate did not prevail and plaintiff publicly attacked
Moeggenberg for what he saw as her efforts to undermine his candidate.
Then things went from bad to worse when plaintiff began insinuating publicly that
Moeggenberg and a Michigan elected Representative, Andrew Seabolt, were having an extra-
marital affair. 	Moeggenberg and Seabolt hired attorney Matt Deperno to file a defamation lawsuit
against plaintiff. 	A default judgment for $250,000 ultimately entered against plaintiff in the
defamation case because he did not respond to it. 	Judge Sniegowski, as the assigned judicial
officer, entered the default judgment. 	On post-judgment motions of the successful defamation
litigants, she then entered orders enforcing the judgment, culminating in seizure and sale of some
of plaintiff’s property to satisfy the judgment. Plaintiff did not fight back within the confines of
the state litigation itself. Instead, he prepared so-called “citizen arrest” warrants against many of
the same people he is suing in these cases. 	He tried to get the Judge, other County officials and
the State Police to enforce his “citizen arrest” warrants, but all declined, for which plaintiff also
feels aggrieved.
Plaintiff filed these two lawsuits against everyone involved in his unraveling, including
Judge Sniegowski, Sheriff Mast, Prosector Bizon, the Oceana Board of Commissioners and its
Chair and Vice-Chair, attorney Deperno, Bree Moeggenberg, Andrew Seabolt and others. 	He
even named process servers and a repossession company, as well as State Police and other officials
who declined to enforce his “citizen arrest” warrants. 	As the Magistrate Judge correctly observed,
even though plaintiff cited many provisions of federal law that he believes the defendants violated,
many of the provisions have no private cause of action. 	For potential claims that did have a
Case 1:26-cv-00364-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 3
of 5

4
private right of action, plaintiff failed to allege Twombly-plausible theories of relief. 	He also
failed to serve some of the defendants as required by Rule. 	The Magistrate Judge carefully parsed
plaintiff’s Complaints in each case and noted how plaintiff fell short, both procedurally and
substantively. 	Rather than deal with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, plaintiff’s objections simply
repeat and expand on the personal and political grievances that fueled his original filings. 	On de
novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that both cases are subject to dismissal.2
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the two Report and Recommendations of the
Magistrate 	Judge 	(No. 	1:25-cv-1236, 	ECF 	No. 	105; 	No. 	1:26-cv-364, 	ECF 	No. 	7) 	are
APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant Deperno’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.
2. 	Defendant Sebolt’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.
3. 	Defendant Moeggenberg’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED.
4. 	Defendants Henry and West Michigan Process Server’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
24) is GRANTED.
5. 	Defendants Peterson and Jordan’s Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 28, 49) are
GRANTED.
2 Defendant Deperno, Moeggenberg, and Sebolt also object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report to the extent
that it recommends that this action be “terminated” because, as they correctly point out, multiple sanctions
motions filed by multiple Defendants are still pending. (ECF No. 107, PageID.1560). Defendants’ objection
is OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court’s decision to adopt
it, does not resolve the other pending sanction motions (ECF Nos. 32, 59, 77), nor Plaintiff’s motion for
contempt (ECF No. 72). The Court will resolve those motions post-judgment.
Case 1:26-cv-00364-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 4
of 5

5
6. 	Defendants Bizon, Erickson, Mat, Miller, Sniegowski, Walker, and Oceana County
Board of Commissioners’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED.
7. 	Defendant Repocast’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED.
8. 	Plaintiff Ritchard’s Objections (No. 1:25-cv-1236, ECF No. 109; No. 1:26-cv-364,
ECF No. 8) are OVERRULED.
9. 	Plaintiff Ritchard’s Complaint (No. 1:25-cv-1236, ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.
10. Plaintiff’s Ritchard’s Complaint (No. 1:26-cv-364, ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.
11. Plaintiff’s remaining motions (ECF Nos. 38, 43, 44, 45, 73, 82, 94, 95, 97, 98, 102,
106, 110), which relate to the merits of his case, are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Dated: 	April 30, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00364-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/30/26 Page 5
of 5