Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Salley v. United States

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

April 10, 2018

DANIEL ERIC SALLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          GINA M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On this 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.

         I. Background

         This 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 “assault.” Id.

         In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi found that each allegation should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         II. Standard of Review

         Pursuant 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).

         Objections 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 clear error.

         III. Applicable Law

         Initially, 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.

         Pursuant 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, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 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.

         IV. Discussion

         A. Plaintiff's First Ground for Relief

         First, 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 Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.