Shaffer v. CMDA Law Firm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALONZO SHAFFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CMDA LAW FIRM,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1000
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this matter by filing a
Complaint on March 26, 2026 (Compl., ECF No. 1). The matter was referred to the Magistrate
Judge, who reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint for failure to state
a claim (R&R, ECF No. 6 at PageID.11–14). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation (Obj., ECF No. 7). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court will deny the objections,
adopt the Report and Recommendation, and issue the following Opinion and Order.
On April 7, 2026, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state
a claim on which relief can be granted, reasoning as follows:
Plaintiff’s allegations do not provide dates, locations, or details to sustain any viable
cause of action. Plaintiff’s claims are precisely the kind of “unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” that are facially implausible and
not viable under Twombly and Iqbal. [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)].
Case 1:26-cv-01000-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed
and that this action be terminated.
(R&R, ECF No. 6 at PageID.13). On April 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response to the Report and
Recommendation, which the Clerk of Court docketed as an objection (Obj., ECF No. 7).
Plaintiff’s responsive submission appears to largely restate the facts of the Complaint and
offer additional factual allegations that Plaintiff did not present to the Magistrate Judge (see Obj.,
ECF No. 7 at PageID.15–20). Plaintiff does not appear to use the word “objection” and fails to
“specifically identify” the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff’s
objections apply in violation of this Court’s rules. 	See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b); Miller v.
William Beaumont Hosp., 121 F.4th 556, 558 (6th Cir. 2024) (noting that a district court’s “local
rules carry the force of law”). To the extent Plaintiff attempts to allege new facts not presented to
the Magistrate Judge, that is not a proper objection to the Report and Recommendation. See Murr
v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 907 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that the Magistrate Judge Act does
not permit parties to raise new issues in objections to a district court that were not presented to the
magistrate judge). After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s submission, the Court concludes that he
has failed to identify factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or conclusion.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of the Court. A Judgment will enter consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R.
C IV. P. 58. 	Because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 206, 211–12 (2007).
Case 1:26-cv-01000-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 7) are DENIED and the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 6) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.
Dated: May 27, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-01000-JMB-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/27/26 Page 3
of 3