United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. GROH CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate
Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to this
Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to
Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of an R&R. On
June 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R
recommending that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice and deny as moot his application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to
conduct a de novo review of those portions of the
magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made.
However, this Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections
are made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Failure to file objections in a timely manner constitutes a
waiver of de novo review and a plaintiff's right
to appeal this Court's order. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363,
1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Moreover, “[w]hen a party
does make objections, but these objections are so general or
conclusory that they fail to direct the district court to any
specific error by the magistrate judge, de novo review is
unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644
F.Supp.2d 723, 730 (S.D. W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)).
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to Magistrate
Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen days
after being served with a copy of the same. The R&R was
sent to the Plaintiff by certified mail on June 19, 2019. ECF
No. 5. The Plaintiff filed his objections on July 1, 2019.
ECF No. 8. Accordingly, the Court will review the portions of
the R&R to which the Plaintiff objects de novo.
R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the
Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice because
it is “frivolous, an abuse of the judicial process, and
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” ECF No. 5 at
1. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Trumble found that most of
the Plaintiff's claims are “nothing more than such
nutty, delusional, and wholly fanciful allegations as to be
simply unbelievable and therefore frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).” Id. at 8. To the
extent that the Plaintiff alleges any claims that are not
frivolous, Magistrate Judge Trumble found that such
allegations “clearly relate to events that took place
in Illinois.” Id. Lastly, Magistrate Judge
Trumble found that the Plaintiff has filed at least 93
lawsuits in 17 different district courts, which bars the
Plaintiff from reasserting these claims in this Court.
objections, the Plaintiff “objects to his lawsuit being
labeled frivolous.” ECF No. 8 at 1. However, from a
review of the pleadings, it is clear that the majority of the
Plaintiff's claims are entirely irrational with no
arguable basis in fact or law. For example, the Plaintiff
states, “Grandmas kick ass, ” [ECF No. 1 at 3],
“The U.S. Department of Justice does not deny the 9/11
Terrorist Attacks were engineered to initiate an epoch of
perpetual war, ” [Id.], “Hillary Rodham
Clinton lobbied for the 1994 Crime Bill in exchange for
future campaign contributions from the private prison
industry for her inevitable Presidential campaign, ”
[Id. at 4], “Bill Clinton is a serial rapist,
” [Id. at 5], “Where shall Illinois
7th Circuit Judge John P. Schmidt be tried for
public corruption, ” [Id. at 6], “Ally
McBeal is an eccentric lawyer who is surrounded by eccentric
lawyers, ” [Id. at 9], and so on. These claims
have absolutely no basis in law or fact and are entirely
frivolous. To the extent that the Plaintiffs claims are not
frivolous [see ECF No. 1 at 1-2], the Plaintiffs
claims are barred by res judicata. The Plaintiff does not
dispute that he has filed at least 93 lawsuits related to the
same subject matter. Nevertheless, even assuming res judicata
did not bar the Plaintiffs claims, the proper venue for the
Plaintiffs claims is the Central District of Illinois, as all
of the complained events occurred in that district.
upon careful review, the Court ORDERS that
Magistrate Judge Trumble's Report and Recommendation [ECF
No. 5] is ADOPTED for the reasons more fully
stated therein. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs Complaint [ECF
No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The
Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
STRIKE this case from the Court's active
docket. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to
mail a copy of this Order to the pro se ...