Clervrain v. Keller et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 4 Final Report and Recommendation. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 6/4/2018. (sap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
J.A. KELLER, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:18-CV-1854-AT

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. 4] recommending that this case be dismissed
without prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R for clear error if no objections are filed to the report. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district court must determine
de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge’s disposition that is the subject of a
proper objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
On May 17, within the time allowed to file objections to the R&R, Plaintiff
filed a “‘Motion for Objection and Recommendation’ Or, Extention for Good
Caused [sic].” (“Motion”, Doc. 6.)
nonsensical.

Plaintiff’s motion is unclear and in part

In addition to seeking an extension of time, Plaintiff’s motion

apparently responds to the R&R and restates portions of the Complaint. (See

Motion, Doc. 6 at 2; Complaint, Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Rather than grant Plaintiff’s
motion, the Court construes the motion as timely-filed objections to the R&R and
reviews the R&R de novo.
The Court has reviewed the R&R de novo in its entirety and finds the R&R
correct and Plaintiff’s objections without merit. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks
an
issuance of a violation ordinance under the Federal Civil Rights Act,
(“FCRA”); 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the above defendants who are:
J.A. Keller. Mitchell, et al, who is the Director of the Southeast
Regional Office (“SRO”), or The Southeast Apartness Negligence
(“SAN”), Atlanta, Giorgia, among others, the defendants anticipating
in the apartheid operation with the (“PMB”), or The Secrecy
Operation Management (“SOM”) while the plaintiff was in their
custody, he had suffered injuries, or the various violation for the
constitutions, as well as for violations of the various criminal
misconducts against the United States of the claims challenging to
mitigate the power of prison official in which they are not above the
laws, or in violation of the federal policies and the constitutions.
(Complaint, Doc. 1 at 1) (emphasis, capitalization, spelling, and grammar in
original.) Plaintiff further states that
the purpose of this motion is to prepare for courts procedures while
being retaliate by the (“BOP”), and its partners for the allegations of
their ‘criminal enterprise’, and to abolish apartheid in each region in
the United States.
(Id.) (emphasis, capitalization, spelling, and grammar in original.) As pointed
out by the Magistrate Judge, “Manetirony Clervain has been a prolific litigant,
pursuing approximately thirty . . . cases” in federal district and appeals courts
across the country. (R&R at 1.)
2

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that “Clervrain has raised no
claim(s) against Keller or Mitchell upon which he would be entitled to relief in
this Court . . . .” (R&R at 6.) This is because (1) Plaintiff failed to provide any
specific factual allegations relating to the named defendants’ involvement in the
alleged “apartheid”; and also because (2) Plaintiff’s allegations all pertain to
locations outside this venue. (R&R at 4-6.)
In his response to the R&R, Plaintiff notes: “It is clear and settled that
Georgia is listed as one of the state that part of the allegation of Apartheid which,
gives the court absolute jurisdiction in this matter of this case . . . .” However,
this conclusory statement does not show that the Magistrate Judge erred. As the
Magistrate Judge stated, “to the extent that Clervrain raises any claims that might
liberally be construed as asserting specific violations of his federal civil rights,
those claims relate to events alleged to have taken place . . . outside the Northern
District of Georgia.” (R&R at 5.) Further, Plaintiff’s lack of allegations involving
this district was only one of the two deficiencies noted by the Magistrate Judge.
Even if Plaintiff’s allegations concerned this district, his allegations as to the two
named defendants are still too nonspecific and nonsensical to entitle him to
relief.
In short, and as the Magistrate Judge correctly found, Plaintiff’s Complaint
raises no colorable claims against either Defendant that would entitle him to
relief.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
3

Recommendation as the opinion of this Court. For the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this case is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to handle this matter consistent with the
instructions of the Magistrate Judge on page six (6) of the Report and
Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2018.
___________________________________
AMY TOTENBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4