Hood v. Smith et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JULIAN R. HOOD, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1237
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on October 14, 2025, alleging a claim of
“Extrinsic Fraud” against several Defendants just before entry of this Court’s Order setting
restrictions on new lawsuits challenging his Postal Service termination and the 2005 settlement
agreement. See Hood v. DeJoy, 1:24-cv-1295 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2025) (Mem. Op. & Order,
ECF No. 26). On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, and
the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R),
recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, accept the proposed amended complaint
for filing, and deny the motions associated with judgment or dismissal of the original complaint.
The matter is presently before the Court on Defendants Smith and Wheeler Upham, P.C.’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation. 	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. 	For the
following reasons, the Court denies the objections.
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 61, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/15/26 Page 1
of 3

2
In his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff names only Defendants Smith and Wheeler
Upham, P.C., alleging “Fraud on the Court” and “Independent Action to Prevent a Grave
Miscarriage of Justice” (ECF No. 37-1). As the Magistrate Judge acknowledged (R&R, ECF No.
46 at PageID.737), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides for leave that is “freely
given” when justice so requires, and, when deciding whether to grant leave to amend, a district
court may consider several factors, including futility of amendment. Stanley v. W. Michigan Univ.,
105 F.4th 856, 867 (6th Cir. 2024) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). 	In
recommending that this Court accept the proposed pleading, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that
the “circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s [proposed] amended complaint are unique,” and he
emphasized that there is no indication that Plaintiff’s filing restrictions “appl[y] retroactively”
(R&R, ECF No. 46 at PageID.737–738).
In their objections, Defendants Smith and Wheeler Upham, P.C. argue that the Magistrate
Judge failed to sufficiently address the arguments set forth in their opposition brief about the
futility of Plaintiff’s proposed claims (Objs., ECF No. 57 at PageID.771, 773–777, referencing
ECF No. 43 at PageID.727–730). While futility is a permissible basis for denying a motion for
leave to amend, courts retain discretion to grant the motion and allow the substantive legal issues
to be addressed through a fully briefed motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 	See, e.g.,
Bucciarelli v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 662 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Mich. 2009); see also Kellogg
Co. v. FPC Flexible Packaging Corp., No. 1:11-cv-272, 2012 WL 769476, at *4 (W.D. Mich.
Mar. 7, 2012) (opining that the “more orderly procedure” is to “allow filing of the amended
pleading, without prejudice to any party’s ability to file an appropriate motion to dismiss under
FED. R. C IV. P. 12(b), which the parties and the court can then address under the procedures
appropriate to motions of a dispositive nature”). The Magistrate Judge in this case expressly noted
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 61, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/15/26 Page 2
of 3

3
that Defendants Smith and Wheeler Upham, P.C. were allowed to file a new motion to dismiss the
proposed amended complaint (R&R, ECF No. 46 at PageID.738), and the Court discerns no abuse
of discretion that requires a different result.
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 57) are DENIED, and the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 46) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the
Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (ECF No.
37) is GRANTED, and the proposed amended complaint (ECF No. 37-1) is accepted for docketing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against
Defendants Smith and Wheeler Upham (ECF No. 21) is DENIED because these Defendants have
appeared in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Smith and Wheeler Upham, P.C.’s motion
to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is DENIED without prejudice to these Defendants filing a new motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant American Postal Workers Union’s motion
to dismiss (ECF No. 40) and Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to serve the complaint
(ECF No. 34) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants United States Postal Service, Unknown
parties, the American Postal Workers Union, the Michigan Postal Workers Union, and Local 281
Western Michigan Area are TERMINATED as parties to this case.
Dated: April 15, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-01237-JMB-MV ECF No. 61, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/15/26 Page 3
of 3