Pugh v. Panozzo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAMIEN D. PUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANET A. PANOZZO,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-327
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Defendant. On October 2, 2025,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the action be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections
to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24). 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. 	The Court
denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
The Magistrate Judge described the procedural history of the case and determined that (1)
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders is willful and manifests bad faith;
(2) Plaintiff’s conduct unfairly prejudices Defendant’s ability to defend against Plaintiff’s claims;
(3) Plaintiff was expressly and repeatedly warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Orders
may result in dismissal of his claims; and (4) a sanction other than dismissal is insufficient (R&R,
ECF No. 23 at PageID.82).
Case 1:25-cv-00327-JMB-PJG ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 1
of 2

2
In his objections, Plaintiff supplies excerpts from the state law he alleges that Defendant
violated, and he inaccurately contends that the Rule 16 scheduling conference was “moot” because
“both parties … have to agree to participate in the mediation” (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 24 at PageID.85–
86). 	In short, Plaintiff does not meaningfully interact with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, let
alone demonstrate any factual or legal error therein. Therefore, the objections are properly denied.
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. C IV. P.
58. Consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, this Court also certifies pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 	See
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610–11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211–12 (2007). Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 24) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 23) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH
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: October 27, 2025
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-00327-JMB-PJG ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/27/25 Page 2
of 2