United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for
consideration of the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Michael John Aloi. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules,
this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for
submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Aloi
issued his R&R [ECF No. 34] on June 28, 2017. In the
R&R, he recommends that the Plaintiff's complaint
[ECF No. 1] be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
civil action commenced on December 29, 2015, when the
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the United States of
America under the Federal Tort Claim Act. ECF No. 1. In the
Plaintiff's first claim, he alleges that the United
States Treasury Department sent him in excess of 550 billion
dollars and that the Bureau of Prisons unlawfully denied him
access to that money. Id. at 6. Next, he claims that
he is being falsely imprisoned because the Northern District
of Illinois found that he was “incompetent to stand
trial” at the time he was convicted. Id. at 7.
Finally, he states that the Bureau of Prisons extorted $76,
000 from the Plaintiff and his daughter, which constituted an
R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi found that each allegation
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
Standard of Review
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to
make a de novo review of those portions of the
magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made.
However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of
the findings or recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of
de novo review and of a Plaintiff's right to
appeal this Court's Order. 28.U.S.C..'.636(b)(1);
Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.
1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94
(4th Cir. 1984).
to Magistrate Judge Aloi's R&R were due within
fourteen days of the Plaintiff being served with a copy of
the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The
R&R was mailed to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2017. The
Plaintiff accepted service on July 3, 2017 and filed
objections on July 21, 2017. Accordingly, the Court will
undertake de novo review of those portions of
Magistrate Judge Aloi's findings to which objection is
made. The Court will review the remainder of the R&R for
the Plaintiff objects to the legal standard applied by
Magistrate Judge Aloi. Specifically, he argues that
Magistrate Judge Aloi erroneously relied on Conley v.
Gibson in making his decision. ECF No. 36 at 2. Although
the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Aloi applied the
appropriate legal standards, the Court will reiterate the
controlling law here.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) the Court is required to review
certain civil actions brought by prisoners and must dismiss
the case if the Court determines that the complaint is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted if it does not provide “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). Although the pleading standard “does
not require ‘detailed factual allegations, ' . . .
it demands more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Accordingly,
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
to relief above the speculative level, ” to one that is
“plausible on its face.” Twombly, 559
U.S. at 555, 570.
Plaintiff's First Ground for Relief
the Plaintiff alleges that the Bureau of Prisons is denying
him access to over 550 billion dollars sent to the Plaintiff
by the United States Department of Treasury. Magistrate Judge
Aloi found that the Plaintiff's claim that the U.S.
Treasury “remitted to him, based on his own directive,
any amount, much less an amount equal to nearly one sixth of
the United States' total revenues is fantastical.”
For that reason, Magistrate Judge Aloi determined that the