govinfo:USCOURTS-miwd-1_26-cv-01471-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
 
ROOSEVELT LASHAWN WILLIAMS,    ) 
    Plaintiff,  ) 
       ) No. 1:26-cv-1471 
-v-       ) 
       ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney 
GOOGLE, INC., et al.,     ) 
    Defendants.  ) 
       ) 
 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
 Plaintiff Williams sued Google, Facebook and several other similar internet entities.  
Plaintiff contends he owns intellectual property rights to his name.  Plaintiff asserts that, by 
including his name on various websites, the defendants have infringed on his property.  
Plaintiff proceeds without the assistance of counsel and the  court granted his request to 
proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee. 
 The Magistrate Judge conducted a review of the complaint.  The Magistrate Judge 
then issued a report recommending the court dismiss the complaint because the factual 
allegations failed to state any cause of action for which a court might grant relief.  EC F No. 
7.  Plaintiff filed objections.  ECF No. 8.  The court will adopt the report and 
recommendation. 
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate 
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and 
recommendations.  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).  A district court j udge 
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed.  28 U.S.C. § 
Case 1:26-cv-01471-PLM-SJB     ECF No. 9,  PageID.<pageID>     Filed 06/10/26     Page 1
of 3
2 
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).  Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a 
de novo review under the statute.  Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per 
curiam).   
 1.  The majority of Plaintiff’s objections fail to identify any error of fact or law in the 
report and recommendation.  The Magistrate Judge identifies each cause of action and then 
explains why the complaint fails to state a claim.  With one exception, Plaintiff does not 
address the specific deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation.   
 2.  For the copyright infringement claim, the Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff does 
not allege that he obtained a copyright registration for his name before filing the complaint.  
Plaintiff does specifically object to this finding.  As part of his objection, Plaintiff attaches a 
Fictitious Name Certificate purportedly issued by the State Corporation Commission of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.  ECF No. 8-1 PageID.83.   
 The court overrules Plaintiff’s objection concerning the copyright claim.  First, 
Plaintiff did not plead the existence of any copyright property interest based on a Fictitious 
Name Certificate.  In his complaint, Plaintiff pleads that he possesse d intellectual property 
based on UCC financing statements, something the Magistrate Judge rejected. Second, 
Plaintiff has not provided the court with any legal authority to support the conclusion that 
the Fictitious Name Certificate issued by the state of Virginia established intellectual property 
that would be protected by the Copyright Act or by common law.  
See, e.g., Old Town 
Funeral Choices v. Northern Virginia Funeral Choices, Inc. , No. 161875, 55 Va. Cir. 459, 
2000 WL 33316520, at *5 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 15, 2000) (finding that a fictitious name 
Case 1:26-cv-01471-PLM-SJB     ECF No. 9,  PageID.<pageID>     Filed 06/10/26     Page 2
of 3
3 
certificate “did not, standing alone, prevent others from using the name. … Any number of 
persons or entities can file a fictitious name certificate for the same assumed name.”).   
 3.  Plaintiff asks the court to clarify whether the dismissal would be for lack of subject 
matter jurisdiction or something else.  If the reason for dismissal is a lack of jurisdiction, 
Plaintiff argues the dismissal should be without prejudice. 
 The court overrules this objection.  The Magistrate Judge makes clear that the claims 
should be dismissed for the failure to state a claim, and the dismissal should be with 
prejudice. 
  Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation, ECF No. 7 , and 
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims for failing to state a claim.  IT IS SO ORDERED.  
 
Date:      June 10, 2026       /s/  Paul L. Maloney  
        Paul L. Maloney 
        United States District Judge 
Case 1:26-cv-01471-PLM-SJB     ECF No. 9,  PageID.<pageID>     Filed 06/10/26     Page 3
of 3

Passage view · GavelSight