Parker v. Mahle Filter System North America, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAHLE FILTER SYSTEM
NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-12491
Honorable Brandy R. McMillion
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE, FOR
SANCTIONS, AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS
(ECF NOS. 15, 16, 20)
Plaintiff Anthony Parker sues his former employer, Defendant Mahle
Filter System North America, Inc. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Brandy R.
McMillion referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 14. Parker moves to strike Mahle’s
answer, for sanctions, and for leave to file motions. ECF No. 15; ECF No.
16; ECF No. 20. The motions are DENIED.
In his motions to strike Mahle’s answer and for sanctions, Parker
argues that the answer is untimely. ECF No. 15; ECF No. 16. Parker is
mistaken. On August 8, 2025, Parker emailed defense counsel with a
Case 2:25-cv-12491-BRM-EAS ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 1 of 4

2
request to waive service and attached the request form. ECF No. 19-1,
PageID.124, 126. Mahle completed the waiver of service on August 12,
which Parker filed the same day. ECF No. 8.1 The waiver states Mahle’s
understanding that it “must file and serve an answer or a motion under
[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12 within 60 days from August 8, 2025.”
Id. (cleaned up).
If a defendant waives service under Rule 4(d), its responsive pleading
must be filed “within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(ii). Because Parker requested waiver of service on
August 8, Mahle’s answer was due on October 7. Mahle timely filed its
answer on that date. ECF No. 13. That the U.S. Marshal Service
attempted to serve Mahle by postal mail on September 2 does not change
this analysis. 	See ECF No. 12; Yarbrough v. Garrett, No. 06-CV-14021,
2007 WL 1452922, at *2, n.7 (E.D. Mich. May 14, 2007). Neither striking
the answer nor sanctions are justified, and Parker’s motions are denied.
Parker also moves for leave to file motions. ECF No. 20. The motion
consists of two sentences stating, “Now Plaintiff Motions the Court for
Leave to file motions: All court documents filed Pro Se. Plaintiff prays the
1 The same waiver of service was erroneously filed again on August 25,
2025, because Parker mailed it to the Clerk’s Office in addition to
submitting it via the pro se upload. ECF No. 11.
Case 2:25-cv-12491-BRM-EAS ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 2 of 4

3
motion is granted.” 	Id. 	Parker does not identify what motions he wishes to
file, and the Court cannot determine whether leave is warranted or even
necessary. The motion is denied.
Parker’s early flurry of meritless motions is concerning. “Every paper
filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or frivolous,
requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the
Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way
that promotes the interests of justice.” 	In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184
(1989); see also U.S. ex rel Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor Cty., 73
F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Frivolous, vexatious, and repeated filings by
pro se litigants interfere with the orderly administration of justice by
diverting scarce judicial resources from cases having merit and filed by
litigants willing to follow court orders.”). The Court thus WARNS Parker
that he may face sanctions, filing restrictions, or involuntary dismissal of his
complaint if he floods the dockets with frivolous motions.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 24, 2025
Case 2:25-cv-12491-BRM-EAS ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 3 of 4

4
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on October 24, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-12491-BRM-EAS ECF No. 21, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/24/25 Page 4 of 4