AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesDavid Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive

W.D. Michigan · Nov 6, 2025

MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that the pro se plaintiff included a fabricated case citation in his objections. The court noted this was a repeat offense, as it had previously warned the plaintiff that the cited case, 'Bolin v. Story,' does not exist.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a nonexistent case citation; court noted 'Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (6th Cir. 2000)' does not exist and had been previously warned.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In this pro se litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan overruled the plaintiff's objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The court noted that the plaintiff's objections relied on a nonexistent case citation, 'Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (6th Cir. 2000).' The court explicitly stated that it had previously warned the plaintiff in an earlier order that this specific citation does not exist. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, finding the plaintiff's arguments regarding magistrate judge jurisdiction meritless and repetitive.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateNov 6, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court overruled the plaintiff's objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in full, denying the plaintiff's motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Order adopting a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation following the plaintiff's filing of objections.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a nonexistent case citation; court noted 'Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (6th Cir. 2000)' does not exist and had been previously warned.

Questions this record answers

What happened in David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive?
The court identified that the pro se plaintiff included a fabricated case citation in his objections. The court noted this was a repeat offense, as it had previously warned the plaintiff that the cited case, 'Bolin v. Story,' does not exist.
Why does David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers Automotive summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jun 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsLothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)W.D. Michigan · Dec 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsLothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)W.D. Michigan · Aug 29, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsIzzeddin Ahmed Abdulghaffar Daghra v. Steve Hinkley, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2026same court · fake citations + trialChecks Aciek Ateny Nai v. National Asset Mortgage, LLC, et al.W.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 2026same court · fake citations + trial