Perez-Montijo v. Montcalm County Sheriff's Department, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LUIS JAVIER PEREZ-MONTIJO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTCALM COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-885
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Luis Javier Perez-Montijo, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this
case in March 2026 with the filing of a Complaint. 	On March 25, 2026, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Complaint be dismissed upon initial
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state any claim upon which relief may
be granted. On April 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed an unsigned Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9), and
the Magistrate Judge required him to submit a signature page (Order, ECF No. 10). Plaintiff filed
the Signature Page (ECF No. 11), albeit no objections to the Report and Recommendation, and
this Court returned the matter to the Magistrate Judge to consider whether Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint affected her prior recommendation (Order, ECF No. 18).
On May 18, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
23), recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed upon initial screening
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state any claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Magistrate Judge indicated that the Amended Complaint added “nothing of substance that
Case 1:26-cv-00885-JMB-SJB ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 1
of 3

2
gives rise to a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights” (id. at PageID.160). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24). 1
This Court’s Local Rules require a party objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation to “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations
or report to which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” 	W.D. Mich. LCivR
72.3(b). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), in turn, require this
Court to perform de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which objections are made.
In his objections, Plaintiff merely restates his legal positions without referencing the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis, let alone identifying any factual or legal error therein. See ECF No.
24 at PageID.163–170. Consequently, Plaintiff’s objections are properly denied. Additionally, 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.
1 Without leave granted, see F ED. R. C IV. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiff also filed an additional pleading—
titled “First Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 25), which is properly stricken.
Case 1:26-cv-00885-JMB-SJB ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 2
of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is DISMISSED
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25) is
STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for a stay, to correct a clerical error,
and to supplement (ECF Nos. 14, 21, & 22) are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
Dated: June 11, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:26-cv-00885-JMB-SJB ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/11/26 Page 3
of 3