MCCOLLIGAN v. VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Filing 21

ORDER denying 17 Motion to Cease and Desist. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 6/29/2018. (chc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

RODNEY MICHAEL
MCCOLLIGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:18-cv-00111-TES

VENDOR RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CEASE AND DESIST
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff has moved the Court and all parties to “Cease and Desist use of Plaintiff’s
Copyright” and then proceeds to list various personal names he claims are protected by
copyright and no one is allowed to use. [Doc. 17]. Plaintiff baldly asserts that anyone,
including the Court ostensibly, who uses these “copyrighted names” will be charged
$500,000 per occurrence. 1 [Id. at 2]. However, “[i]n order to prove a claim of [copyright]

1

As the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia points out:
Plaintiff's allegations are consistent with “sovereign citizen” ideology, which is not
recognized by the federal courts. Santiago v. Century 21/PHH Mortg., No. 1:12-CV-2792KOB, 2013 WL 1281776, at *4-5 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2013) (recognizing plaintiff's argument
that name used by mortgage company is not authorized for use by any agency or person
as consistent with the “‘sovereign citizen’ movement” and that such theories “are not
established law in this court or anywhere in this country's valid legal system”).

Williams v. Warren, 1:16-CV-4657-TWT-JKL, 2017 WL 1395514, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2017) (first citation
omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 1:16-CV-4657-TWT, 2017 WL 1376210 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 17, 2017),
dismissed sub nom; Williams v. Cobb Cty., 17-12006-J, 2017 WL 3432031 (11th Cir. June 6, 2017).

infringement a plaintiff must show (1) that he owns a valid copyright in the work and (2)
copying by the defendant.” Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d
821, 824 (11th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff has not shown that any of his allegedly copyrighted
names are valid and registered works; therefore, his claim fails.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Cease and Desist Use of Copyright [Doc.
17] is without merit and is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of June, 2018.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2