Opinion
Case No. 1:22-cv-11024
2022-07-12
Mark Alan ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. State of MICHIGAN et al., Defendants.
Mark Alan Adams, Frankenmuth, MI, Pro Se.
Mark Alan Adams, Frankenmuth, MI, Pro Se.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Mark Alan Adams filed a pro se 27-count complaint alleging that the United States of America, the State of Michigan, and 42 other public and private parties violated his constitutional rights and various state laws by, among other things, criminally trying and convicting him while he was in Europe, jailing him, making him pay bond for release, and destroying his "off-the-grid farming initiatives," all which ultimately led to the "depraved-heart murder" of his 90-year-old mother who passed away due to lack of a caregiver. ECF No. 1.
Because Plaintiff asked to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, ECF No. 3, who recommended that this Court sua sponte dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim, ECF No. 6.
Although the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") stated that Plaintiff could object to and seek review of the recommendations within 14 days of service, he did not file any objections and therefore waived his right to appeal Judge Morris's findings. ECF No. 7 at PageID.58 (citing Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ). Because Plaintiff did not object within the prescribed time, this Court adopted the R & R, id. , and sua sponte dismissed the Complaint, ECF No. 8.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and for a change of venue. ECF No. 9. In that motion, Plaintiff argued that the case was unlawfully and prematurely closed and that he should get a change of venue "given all the ever-worsening judicial fuckery." ECF No. 9 at PageID.60. In essence, that motion is an untimely filed objection to the R & R. See id. at PageID.62.
Plaintiff next sent two emails from markaa1955@gmail.com to Judge Morris's email demanding that she and the undersigned resolve his motion before the 30-day appeal deadline. ECF Nos. 10; 11. He concurrently filed a motion for an extension of time to amend his complaint. ECF No. 12.
On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the R & R and the Judgment dismissing his Complaint. ECF No. 13.
A notice of appeal generally "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons , 470 U.S. 373, 379, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co. , 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam)); see also Workman v. Tate , 958 F. 2d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1992).
Petitioner's Notice of Appeal divests this Court of jurisdiction to consider his Motion for Reconsideration and his Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint. Jurisdiction of this action was transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Whether Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief is an aspect of this case involved in his appeal. His Motion for Reconsideration would have this Court decide that same question, and his Motion for Extension would have this Court de facto vacate its prior order. Thus, Petitioner's Motions may be addressed by only the Sixth Circuit. See Grizzell v. Tennessee , 601 F. Supp. 230, 232 (M.D. Tenn. 1984). For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motions will be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 9, and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension to File Amend Complaint, ECF No. 12, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE .