Shaltry v. Collins, No. 25-13704 (June 2, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Patrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
June 2, 2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
PATRICK C. SHALTRY, Plaintiff, v. DONNA COLLINS, et al., Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1556473Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D.Michigan, Southern Division.PATRICK C. SHALTRY, Plaintiff,v.DONNA COLLINS, et al., Defendant.Case No. 25-13704|Filed 06/02/2026Editor's Note: This document contains discussion ofunverified citations, likely generated by AI tools used by aparty or counsel. These citations are not attributable to theCourt. The unverified citations have been preserved as part ofthe official record, but links are unavailable.OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING ANDADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MAY 13,2026, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECFNo. 49), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 50), DENYINGPLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 50-1), ANDDENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TOFILE (ECF No. 51)F. Kay Behm United States District Judge*1 Several matters are before the court. The first isMagistrate Judge Morris's March 27, 2026 Report andRecommendation. (ECF No. 44). Magistrate Judge Morrisrecommends that Defendants Donna Collins and “stand-aloneentity” be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to effect servicepursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Defendant filed severaldocuments subsequent to that report and recommendation,but neither document is clearly labeled as objections to thepresent report and recommendation, and neither documentis fairly construed as such. See ECF No. 50 (motion forreconsideration of the order at ECF No. 45), ECF No. 51(motion for leave to file “constitutional” motion). The courtis fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the recordand the pleadings. The court notes that Plaintiff Shaltry is ane-filer and so was electronically served with the report andrecommendation on the date it was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.5(d)(3)(B), 5(b)(2)(E) (paper is properly served by sendingit to a registered user by filing it with the court's electronic-filing system); see also E.D. Mich. Electronic Filing Policiesand Procedures R1(e), R16(a). The court also notes thatJudge Morris' report and recommendation set out a clearwarning that he must label any objections as an “objection” inorder to invoke this court's review. ECF No. 49, PageID.769.“[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge's report[ ]releases the Court from its duty to independently reviewthe matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070 (E.D. Mich.Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149(1985)). The court nevertheless agrees with the MagistrateJudge's recommended disposition on the grounds stated inthat report and recommendation. The court will accept andadopt the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49) anddismiss Defendant Collins and Defendant “standalone entity”from this matter.The court notes that, in an attachment to another motion,Plaintiff argued for a stay of proceedings and that he “intendsto be able to answer the Hon. Magistrate[']s possible newreport and recommendation” at a later point, which appearsto argue for an extension of the deadline to file objectionsto this second report and recommendation. But the filingof a motion to stay (ECF No. 50-1), alongside a motionfor reconsideration (ECF No. 50) was proof that Plaintiffwas capable of filing objections, although those objectionsstill would have been untimely had they been filed withthose documents. Plaintiff was on notice of the 14-daydeadline for objections. ECF No. 49, PageID.769. And aswill be explained later, the court rejects Plaintiff's substantivearguments for seeking a stay of these proceedings. Therefore,any objections Plaintiff “intended” to file later are untimelyand Plaintiff has shown no excusable neglect to extend thedeadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).Second, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No.50) of this court's order (ECF No. 45) accepting and adoptingthe Magistrate Judge's prior report and recommendation (ECFNo. 44). The court's order dismissed, on the MagistrateJudge's recommendation, many of the defendants in thismatter. ECF No. 45. Under Eastern District of Michigan LocalRule 7.1(h)(2), a party may file a motion for reconsiderationof a non-final order only if: (A) the court made a mistake,correcting the mistake changes the outcome of the priordecision, and the mistake was based on the record and lawbefore the court at the time of its prior decision, (B) anintervening change in controlling law warrants a differentoutcome, or (C) new facts warrant a different outcome and
PATRICK C. SHALTRY, Plaintiff, v. DONNA COLLINS, et al., Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2the new facts could not have been discovered with reasonablediligence before the prior decision. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(2). “Motions for reconsideration of non-final orders aredisfavored.” Id. They “must” be filed within 14 days after theentry of the order to be reconsidered. Id.*2 Notably, a motion for reconsideration, much like amotion to alter or amend a judgment, is not for the purpose of“proffer[ing] a new legal theory or new evidence to support aprior argument when the legal theory or argument could, withdue diligence, have been discovered and offered during theinitial consideration of the issue.” McConocha v. Blue CrossBlue Shield Mut. of Ohio, 930 F. Supp. 1182, 1184 (N.D. Ohio1996). Nor is it an appropriate vehicle for raising new facts orarguments. See Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indiansv. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (motions underFed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “are aimed at reconsideration, not initialconsideration”). “It is an exception to the norm for the Courtto grant a motion for reconsideration.” Maiberger v. City ofLivonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010).First, the motion is plainly untimely, because it was filedon May 21, 2026, more than 14 days after the entry of thecourt's order on April 13, 2026. ECF Nos. 50, 45. Plaintiffoffers no serious explanation for this significant delay. ECFNo. 50, PageID.772 (Plaintiff “submits no other reason thanhandicap and very respectfully asks the grace of the court.”).1The motion is denied on that basis. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991) (the relaxed pleading standardsfor pro se litigants do not apply to “readily comprehendedcourt deadlines”). And on the merits, Plaintiff's stated reasonsdo not suffice to reconsider that earlier order. The onlymistake he alleges is that he says the court erred by rulingbefore considering his motion to stay pending resolution ofhis state court proceedings. However, although he refers tosuch a motion several times, no such motion was pendingat the time the court ruled.2 Second, as far as his motionfor reconsideration itself could be construed to argue thatthe court should have stayed these proceedings before ruling,his arguments would still fail because he does not explainexcusable neglect for his failure to object to the earlier reportand recommendation in the first instance. Supra note 1; seeECF No. 45, PageID.752 (noting his failure to object andresultant waiver of district court review); Collins v. Nat'l Gen.Ins. Co., 834 F. Supp. 2d 632, 641 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (“[A]motion for reconsideration is not a second bite at the apple,nor an opportunity to present evidence or arguments thatcould have been presented in the party's original briefing.”).So the motion for reconsideration is denied.*3 Relatedly, Plaintiff also filed an attachment to his motionfor reconsideration, which was labeled a “Motion to Stay”these proceedings pending the outcome of his state courtappeal. ECF No. 50-1. This was improperly filed, and isdenied on that basis. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(i), 5.1(e)(“Motions must not be combined with any other stand-alonedocument.”). However, because the substantive arguments inPlaintiff's motion to stay (ECF No. 50-1) are intertwined withthe matters addressed here, the court feels it prudent to addressthose points on the merits. Plaintiff's arguments are predicatedon the idea that his state court misdemeanor conviction isnot final while he pursues an appeal of in state court, andtherefore this matter should be stayed pending that appeal, butboth the Magistrate Judge and this court have already rejectedthis point. ECF No. 44, PageID.744 (holding that Plaintiff's“claims [are] barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477(1994), as the underlying falsity Plaintiff alleges would implythe invalidity of his conviction, which has not been reversed,expunged, or declared invalid.”); ECF No. 45 (accepting andadopting the report and recommendation). Plaintiff's citationto Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) is inapposite. Thatcase held that “[i]f a plaintiff files a false-arrest claim beforehe has been convicted ..., it is within the power of the districtcourt, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civilaction until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminalcase is ended.” Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-94. But “[i]f theplaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil suitwould impugn that conviction, Heck will require dismissal[.]”Id. at 394. The latter situation, not the former, controls here. Ajury acquitted Plaintiff of CSC charges but found him guilty ofmisdemeanor domestic violence (ECF No. 19, PageID.370);his conviction for domestic violence is valid until and unlessit is overturned or otherwise invalidated. As Judge Morrishas held in this case, “Plaintiff remains convicted regardlessof the pendency or nature of his appeal[.]” ECF No. 43,PageID.713.3 So his motion to stay (ECF No. 50-1) would bedenied even if it had been properly filed. And as far as thesearguments form the substantive basis of Plaintiff's motion forreconsideration, they fail in that motion as well for the reasonsexplained.The court concludes by noting that Plaintiff stated that he “didnot seek concurrence from Defendants” under E.D. Mich.LR 7.1(a) for any of his current motions. ECF No. 50-1,PageID.778; ECF No. 51, PageID.784. On that independentbasis as well, all are denied. Local Rule 7.1(a) requires that themovant “confer with the other parties ... in good faith and in amanner that reasonably explains the basis for the motion and
PATRICK C. SHALTRY, Plaintiff, v. DONNA COLLINS, et al., Defendant., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3allows for an interactive process aimed at reaching agreementon the matter or those aspects of the matter that can beresolved without court intervention[.]” For violating that rule,the court “may impose sanctions,” including “taxing costsand attorney's fees, denying the motion, and striking thefiling.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(3). This once, the court hasalso addressed the matter on the merits, but in the future thisrequirement may be enforced with the effect of summarilystriking or denying the offending filing.In sum: the court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the MagistrateJudge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49), andDISMISSES Defendant Collins and Defendant “standaloneentity” from this matter without prejudice. Plaintiff's motionfor reconsideration of ECF No. 45 (ECF No. 50) is DENIED.The court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to stay (ECF No. 50-1)because it was a standalone motion combined with anotherstandalone document, in contravention of E.D. Mich. LR7.1(i) and 5.1(e), and because it lacks merit. Defendant's statecourt conviction is final for purposes of Heck until or unlessit is invalidated in some way. The court has also reviewedPlaintiff's motion for leave to file a “constitutional motion”that, in his words, requires no factual development (ECFNo. 51), and for purposes of docket efficiency, DENIES thatmotion as moot; Plaintiff may file a motion for judgment onthe pleadings or for summary judgment (see Fed. R. Civ. P.12(c), 56) and does not require leave of court for the act offiling the motion. The motion is also denied for failure toseek concurrence from the opposing party. The court does notpurport to prejudge the merits of any argument or defense inso ordering.*4 Because Defendant Reyes remains, this is not a finalorder and does not close the case.SO ORDERED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1556473Footnotes1In an attachment, which is labeled as a separate filing and therefore need not be considered on this motion (see E.D. Mich.LR 7.1(d)(1)(A)), Plaintiff makes additional arguments that relate to the timeliness issue. ECF No. 50-1, PageID.780.However, his conclusory statements that he is a “disabled pro se litigant” and “faces substantial barriers that representedparties do not” do not explain why, specifically, he could not 1) file objections to the Magistrate Judge's March 27, 2026report and recommendation (ECF No. 44), or 2) file a timely motion for reconsideration of the court's April 13, 2026 order(ECF No. 45). Those undeveloped arguments are rejected because they do not explain excusable neglect for missing theabove deadlines. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). His later arguments that he was “cognitively unable” to respond to the reportand recommendation and “sometimes” cannot type or write because his “arms and hands tremble” is more specific, butstill does not account for the substantial delay in filing this motion (more than five weeks after entry of this court's order).So that too fails to explain excusable neglect for missing the deadline by such a wide margin, and in particular where hestill does not provide any substantive objections to the points raised in that report and recommendation.2Plaintiff did include a “motion to stay” (ECF No. 50-1) as a standalone document that was filed in combination with hismotion for reconsideration. The court addresses that motion procedurally and on the merits below.3Judge Morris also noted Plaintiff's “troubling” pattern of misquotes, false quotations, and false citations throughout hisbriefs. This court likewise notes that in his briefing, Plaintiff stated the following proposition: “The Sixth Circuit likewiseholds that a conviction on appeal is not final. Parris v. Pappas, 844 F.3d 172 (6th Cir. 2016).” ECF No. 50, PageID.774(emphasis in original). But that citation does not exist. The reporter leads to a Third Circuit case with a different title andhaving nothing to do with the issues presented, while a search for “Parris v. Pappas” turned up only a series of opinionsfrom a District of Connecticut case, but again the subject matter appears to have nothing to do with this case. The courtnotes and refers this misrepresentation to the Magistrate Judge to consider in conjunction with all of Plaintiff's briefings,and her previous warning, as this case progresses. See ECF No. 43, PageID.715.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access