United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ROY A. DAY, Plaintiff,
ONSTAR, LLC et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth
Stafford's June 20, 2019 and July 3, 2019 Reports and
Recommendations (ECF Nos. 17 and 27), recommending denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,
sua sponte dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and enjoining Plaintiff
Roy Day from filing lawsuits in the Eastern District of
Michigan without leave of the Court.
Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Reports and
Recommendations. The law provides that either party may serve
and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days
after being served with a copy” of a report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district
court will make a “de novo determination of
those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
filed numerous objections to Magistrate Judge Stafford's
Reports and Recommendations. ECF Nos. 22, 29, 30, 31. This
Court reviews de novo parts of a report and
recommendation to which a party objects. Bass v.
McMahon, 499 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2007). “However,
when parties make only frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections, the court reviews the report-recommendation for
clear error.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens
Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cty of Albany, 281 F.Supp.
436, 439 (N.D.N.Y 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted);
accord Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.
1986). After careful analysis of the record, including
Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes
Plaintiff's objections are frivolous, nonsensical, and
vexatious and do not warrant reaching a conclusion contrary
to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
objections are largely unintelligible, though they appear to
allege a broad conspiracy against him by the Court and
Magistrate Judge Stafford. For example, Objection 7 reads:
“It is self-evident that the July 3, 2019
“R&R is a ‘fraudulent order' (intrinsic
and extrinsic), and was entered to deceive and mislead each
and all readers of the true and correct facts, law and
evidence . . .” ECF No. 29 PageID.570. In total,
Plaintiff's Objections fill 405 pages and generally
repeat allegations of fraud and conspiracy.
objections do specifically challenge Judge Stafford's
conclusion that diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied in
this case because Plaintiff and several defendants reside in
Florida. But the objections raise no new points and simply
repeat allegations in the Complaint. As Judge Stafford found,
the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff and some defendants
reside in Florida. Complaint, ECF No. 9, PageID.39-40, 59-
69. This means that diversity is incomplete, and the federal
court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
case. Evanson Ins. Co. v. Hous. Auth. of Somerset,
867 F.3d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 2017). An action is frivolous if
“it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1990). Virtually all of Plaintiff's objections are
frivolous because Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient
for the Court to conclude that he is entitled to relief, nor
does the law plausibly support his position. The Court is
unable to address specifically the remainder of
Plaintiff's objections because the factual and legal
bases for these objections are essentially indecipherable.
Judge Stafford notes, Plaintiff has been enjoined by several
courts around the nation for repeatedly filing frivolous
actions. Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 27
PageID.540-549. After careful analysis, the Report and
Recommendation recommends enjoining Plaintiff from filing
additional actions in the Eastern District of Michigan. And
after reviewing that recommendation, this Court agrees.
foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Stafford's Reports
and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 17, 27) are ACCEPTED
AND ADOPTED as this Court's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Plaintiff's Complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for improper venue. All
pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION is entered against
Plaintiff, enjoining him from filing additional complaints in
the Eastern District of Michigan without leave of the Court.
Plaintiff may refer to the procedure set forth in the July 3,
2019 Report and Recommendation for the process of obtaining
leave to file a new action if he wishes to do so.