United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
G. BYRON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause comes before the Court on the following:
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,
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 3), filed June 11, 2018; and
Plaintiff's Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc.
4), filed June 22, 2018.
briefing complete, the matter is ripe. Upon consideration,
the case is due to be dismissed.
8, 2018, Claimant filed a paper entitled “Emergency
Diplomatic Relations, ” which the Court construes as a
complaint (Doc. 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.
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.).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.
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.
de novo review, the Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Smith that the Complaint is due to be
dismissed 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