United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
initiated this matter on September 7, 2016, against the
United States Postal Service, Megan Brennan, the Postmaster
General, and Beth Eliopoulos, a postal service employee.
Defendants Megan Brennan and the United States Postal Service
filed a motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds (ECF No.
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint
(ECF No. 25) and a motion to dismiss without prejudice and to
transfer (ECF No. 32). Defendants also filed a motion for
sanctions (ECF No. 33). The matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R
& R), recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss
be granted, Plaintiffs motions be denied, Plaintiffs claims
against the unserved Defendant be dismissed, and this action
be terminated. The matter is presently before the Court
on Plaintiffs objection to the Report and Recommendation. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objection has been made. The Court denies the objection and
issues this Opinion and Order.
objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that his
complaint is barred by res judicata (PI. Obj., ECF No. 36
atPageID.543; R& R, ECF No. 35 atPageID.540). Plaintiff
asserts that he could not have raised his instant claim in
any one of his previous cases. However, the Magistrate Judge
applied the governing legal principles for res judicata and
properly determined that the present action is barred. This
action concerns Plaintiff s termination of employment from
the United States Postal Service in April 2004, as have a
number of his previous actions. Plaintiff s effort in 2016 to
seek additional remedies does not alter the res judicata
outcome with respect to the legal claims at issue. Plaintiffs
argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in
the Magistrate Judge's analysis or conclusion. His
objection is therefore denied.
move to sanction Plaintiffs "vexatious litigation by
fining him $1, 000 and restricting his access to the
courts" (ECF No. 33 at PageID.534). Defendants argue
that, objectively, Plaintiff filed this suit vexatiously and
in bad faith. They state that Plaintiff previously filed and
has had adjudicated more than a dozen cases related to his
employment with the Postal Service, including the exact
causes of action he asserts here. Further, he has filed at
least three suits like this one that were dismissed as barred
by res judicata. Defendants request that Plaintiff be
"sanctioned $1, 000 and prohibited from filing any new
action, complaint, or claim for relief against the United
States, the United States Postal Service, or their current or
former employees unless he first obtains leave to file from
the District Court" (ECF No. 34 at PageID.538).
Court recognizes the burden placed on the Court and
Defendants by the repetitive filings, all relating to claims
surrounding the 2004 termination of his employment with the
Postal Service. It is clear that, absent extraordinary
circumstances, Plaintiff s avenues of relief are now
foreclosed. Therefore, while the Court declines to impose
sanctions at this time, Plaintiff is placed on notice that
continued court filings related to his previously filed
claims or the 2004 termination of his employment with the
Postal Service may result in the Court imposing severe
monetary sanctions on Plaintiff and/or his placement on a
"restricted filer" status that would require
permission of the Court before filing any documents.
this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. The Court denies
Defendants' motion for sanctions. A Judgment will be
entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Therefore:
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (ECF No. 36) is
DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 35) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion Requesting
Court Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 25) and Motion to
Dismiss Complaint without Prejudice and Transfer (ECF No. 32)
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against
Defendant Eliopoulos are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
failure to timely effect service.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for
Sanctions (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.
 Service of Plaintiff s complaint was
not effected on Defendant Beth ...