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.

Uriel Bey v. Secretary, U.S. Department of State

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

July 7, 2018

CHTAAZ OCHOSI URIEL BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE and SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants.

          ORDER

          PAUL G. BYRON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause comes before the Court on the following:

         1. Plaintiff's Memorandum to Waive All United States District Court Document Fees, construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), filed June 8, 2018;

         2. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3), filed June 11, 2018; and

         3. Plaintiff's Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), filed June 22, 2018.

         With briefing complete, the matter is ripe. Upon consideration, the case is due to be dismissed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On June 8, 2018, Claimant filed a paper entitled “Emergency Diplomatic Relations, ” which the Court construes as a complaint (Doc. 1).[1] Attached to the Complaint were three exhibits. (Docs. 1-1 through 1-3). As Magistrate Judge Smith aptly put it, “these papers are incomprehensible gibberish.” (Doc. 3, p. 2). Magistrate Judge Smith's Report recommends that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim and failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at pp. 2-5).

         Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation on June 22, 2018. (Doc. 4). Like his earlier papers, Plaintiff's Objection is unintelligible. The Objection first makes reference to a federal statute that deals with the rights and duties of fiduciaries . (Doc. 4, p. 1). The Objection then seemingly asserts that the undersigned and Magistrate Judge should recuse themselves from this case. (Id. at p. 2). Interestingly, Plaintiff next attempts to turn the tables by advancing five questions to be “answered by the court on the record.” (Id.).

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         When a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The district court must consider the record and factual issues independent of the magistrate judge's report, as de novo review is essential to the constitutionality of § 636. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Magistrate Judge Smith's Report recommended that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 3, pp. 2-4). Before allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying a fee), the Court must review the complaint for certain defects. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Namely, if a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant, the Court must dismiss it. Id.

         Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Smith that the Complaint is due to be dismissed[2] pursuant to the Court's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Additionally, the Court finds that the Complaint is due to be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous. “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). The Complaint easily meets this definition, and is therefore due to be dismissed without leave to amend. See Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed.Appx. 231, 233-235 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming district court's sua sponte dismissal of frivolous complaint with prejudice).[3] ...


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.