Pelly v. Jackson Police Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
BRANDON PELLY, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
) 	Case No: 1:25-cv-1126-STA-jay
v. 	)
)
JACKSON POLICE 	)
DEPARTMENT, et al. 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR DISMISSAL
AND
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
Plaintiff Brandon Pelly, pro se, filed the original complaint in this matter on May 21, 2025,
using the official form for complaints for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF
No. 1.) He was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on May 22, 2025. (ECF No. 6.) The
was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management of all pretrial matters and for
determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. See Admin. Order 2013-05.
On September 30, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint
because he had failed to provide factual support for any claims against the Jackson Police
Department or the Madison County Criminal Justice Complex – the only two defendants named
in his complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 6, 2025 (ECF No.
8) and a second amended complaint (ECF No. 9) on November 18, 2025. Plaintiff’s first amended
complaint added “Sgt. Howell.” The second amended complaint, which was filed without
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 13 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

2
permission, asked that “Sgt. Howell” be dismissed and “Yvette Cross” be added as a defendant.
No other defendants were named in the second amended complaint.
On November 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the amended complaints
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because the
allegations were “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no
longer open to discussion.” (Mag. J. Rep. & Rec. p. 3 (quoting Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479
(6th Cir. 1999)), ECF No. 10.) As correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff “fails to make
any factual allegations against the one named Defendant Yvette Cross and fails to articulate any
causes of action. Even considering his original Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Second
Amended Complaint as a whole, his factual allegations fail to establish any actionable claims
against any parties.” (Id. at p. 4.)
In response to the report and recommendation, Plaintiff filed an unpermitted third amended
complaint (ECF No. 11) seeking the assignment of a new district judge and magistrate judge to
this matter. No substantive objections were raised in the third amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a
fourth amended complaint without permission on December 2, 2025. (ECF No. 12.) Again,
Plaintiff did not indicate in any way how the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation was
not supported by the facts or the law.
The applicable standard of review for a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
when objections are filed is de novo review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“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 instruction.”) However, the plaintiff
must file “specific objections.” Murphy v. Reed, 22 F. App’x 390, 391 (6th Cir. 2001). If a plaintiff
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 13 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

3
files “vague, general, or conclusory objections,” then the Court may review the report and
recommendation as if the plaintiff entirely failed to object. Cole v. Yunkins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356
(6th Cir. 2001).
In the present case, Plaintiff’s objections, to the extent the third and fourth amended
complaints are construed as objections, lack any reasonable specificity as to why the Magistrate
Judge should have reached a different outcome. Consequently, the Court has not considered
Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory objections in reaching its decision. However, using any standard
or review, the Court finds that the report and recommendation should be adopted in its entirety.
The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that none of the complaints contain any factual
allegations against Defendant Yvette Cross or any other previously named defendant and fail to
articulate any causes of action.
Having reviewed the record, the controlling law, and Plaintiff’s submissions, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s decision that the complaint(s) must be dismissed. Therefore,
the Court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, and this matter is hereby DISMISSED.
The Court must also consider whether Plaintiff should be allowed to appeal this decision
in forma pauperis, should he seek to do so. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
a non-prisoner desiring to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis must obtain pauper status under
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803-04 (6th Cir. 1999). Rule 24(a)
provides that if a party seeks pauper status on appeal, he must first file a motion in the district
court, along with a supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). However, Rule 24(a) also
provides that if the district court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, or
otherwise denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the party must file his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5).
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 13 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
<pageID>

4
The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445
(1962). The test for whether an appeal is taken in good faith is whether the litigant seeks appellate
review of any issue that is not frivolous. Id. It would be inconsistent for a district court to determine
that the complaint and amended complaints cannot survive screening but the action has sufficient
merit to support an appeal in forma pauperis. The same considerations that led the Court to adopt
the report and recommendation for dismissal at screening also compel the conclusion that an
appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a), that
any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff is not taken in good faith. Leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis is, therefore, DENIED. Accordingly, if Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he must
also pay the full appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting
affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days.1
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: January 5, 2026
1 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(a), any notice of appeal should be filed in this court. A motion to
appeal in forma pauperis then should be filed directly in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. Unless he is specifically instructed to do so, Plaintiff should not send to this
Court copies of documents intended for filing in the Sixth Circuit.
Case 1:25-cv-01126-STA-jay Document 13 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
<pageID>