Saunders v. Allegan, County of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONALD WARREN SAUNDERS III,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ALLEGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-544
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER
Ronald Saunders, proceeding pro se, filed this suit alleging a conspiracy to remove his
daughter C.W. from his custody. Sixth months and over twenty motions later, Saunders objects to
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that his third amended complaint be dismissed
for failure to state a claim. 	(R&R, ECF No. 54.) 	According to Saunders, the magistrate judge
improperly 	analyzed 	a 	“placeholder” 	complaint 	for 	factual 	sufficiency. 	(ECF 	No. 57,
PageID.837.)
Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
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. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 	Because the magistrate judge properly concluded that the operative
complaint fails to state a claim, the Court affirms and adopts the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation that Saunders’s action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court struck Saunders’s first two complaints for using his daughter’s full name
throughout the pleading, in contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. (ECF No. 9.)
Case 1:25-cv-00544-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 66, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 1
of 3

2
Saunders filed a redacted second complaint but then moved several times for an extension of time
to file a third amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 13, 17, 18, 19, 23.) The magistrate judge denied the
motions because Saunders, whose complaint had not yet been served, was under no deadline to
file a third amended complaint. 	(ECF No. 24.) 	The magistrate judge nevertheless directed
Saunders to file his third amended complaint by July 10, the date Saunders himself requested in
his last motion for extension. (Id.) Saunders duly filed a motion for leave to amend on July 10, to
which he appended the proposed third amended complaint. (ECF No. 25.)
In addition to asking for leave to amend, Saunders also asked for thirty days to submit a
supplemental statement of facts that would “[c]orrelate” over three hundred exhibits with the
factual allegations in his complaint. (Id. at 3.) Saunders’s motion does not clearly indicate that
the amended complaint attached to it was incomplete; to the contrary, the motion says that the
amendment “adds substantial factual allegations” and “[p]rovides [a] detailed factual foundation
for each constitutional violation.” (Id.) On October 20 the magistrate judge granted Saunders’s
motion and designated the third amended complaint attached to the July 10 motion as the operative
pleading. (ECF No. 46.) Saunders now objects that the magistrate judge should have reviewed a
different version of the amended complaint, which was attached to yet another motion to amend
filed before the October 20 order was entered. (See ECF No. 48-1.)
Saunders’s objection fails because he is solely responsible for submitting a “placeholder”
complaint in response to the magistrate judge’s order. 	Saunders asked to submit an amended
complaint by July 10, and the magistrate judge designated the complaint submitted by that date as
the operative pleading. 	It was not error for the magistrate judge to hold Saunders to his word.
Even if Saunders’ filings after July 10 are considered, the sheer volume of motions filed by
Saunders makes it almost impossible to determine which document was intended to reflect the
Case 1:25-cv-00544-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 66, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 2
of 3

3
“true” third amended complaint. The fact that Saunders has moved no less than six times to file a
document denoted as a third amended complaint (ECF Nos. 25, 27, 33, 48, 51, 52) leaves no doubt
about the source of the confusion that Saunders now complains of. 	Because the complaint that
became operative failed to state a claim, the magistrate judge did not err in recommending that the
complaint be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 Accordingly,
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Saunders’s 	objections 	to 	the 	R&R 	(ECF 	No. 	57) 	are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 54) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of Saunders’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 15, 21,
26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 37, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 62, 65) are DENIED AS MOOT.
A judgment consistent with this Order shall issue.
Dated: November 19, 2025 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Saunders’s most recent proposed amended complaint is almost 180 pages long. (ECF No. 65-1.) The Court would
have stricken the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) had it become the operative pleading.
Case 1:25-cv-00544-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 66, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 3
of 3