Trimble v. Unknown Party #1 et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
J AYLIN TRIMBLE, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	No. 1:25-cv-1151
-v- 	)
) 	Honorable Paul L. Maloney
J ERICHO M ARING and K YLE JUUSOLA, 	)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jaylin Trimble alleges the defendants violated his civil rights. 	The events
giving rise to this lawsuit occurred when the two defendants, law enforcement officers,
approached a vehicle for illegal parking. The officers allegedly detained all of the individuals
in the vehicle, including Plaintiff who sat in the back seat. The officers subsequently arrested
Plaintiff and placed him in the back seat of their car. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in September
2025 without the assistance of counsel.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19). The Magistrate Judge issued a
report recommending this court grant Defendants’ motion in part and stay this lawsuit (ECF
No. 25). The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment, Eighth
Amendment, and due process claims. 	The Magistrate Judge recommends denying
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper service as moot. Finally, the Magistrate Judge
recommends granting Defendants’ request to stay and administratively close this lawsuit
under
Younger abstention.
Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 26). Defendants did not timely file any objections.
Case 1:25-cv-01151-PLM-SJB ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/01/26 Page 1
of 3

2
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute.
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
Plaintiff’s objections do not address the specific findings of fact or conclusions of law
set forth in the R&R. Plaintiff generally accuses the defendants of failing to respond to his
various requests for documents and also accuses them of falsifying documents. 	Plaintiff
requests the court stay all aspects of this lawsuit until he serves his 90-day sentence so that he
can find counsel to assist him. 	These objections do not provide any basis for the court to
find that the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous or that the conclusions
of law were contrary to law.
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 25) as
its opinion. The court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19).
The court STAYS and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSES this lawsuit.
Case 1:25-cv-01151-PLM-SJB ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/01/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Plaintiff may move to reopen this lawsuit within 30 days after the expiration of his
appeal period in his state criminal law action or after a final decision on any appeal. 	The
motion must describe the result in the state criminal action, including the result of any appeal.
If Plaintiff has not already filed a motion to reopen this case, no later than six months
from the date of this order, Plaintiff MUST FILE a status report. Plaintiff must inform the
court about (1) the status of any appeal, (2) any efforts to obtain counsel for the purpose of
litigating this lawsuit, and (3) his intent to continue litigating this action. 	Failure to file a
motion to reopen the lawsuit or a status report within six months will result in an order
dismissing this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	April 1, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01151-PLM-SJB ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/01/26 Page 3
of 3