Gross v. Preict Officers et al

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing re 1 Complaint filed by Donell C. Gross. Objections to R&R due by 8/8/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/25/17. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
DONELL C. GROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PREICT OFFICERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV417-138

REPORT AND RECOMMEDATION
Pro se plaintiff Donell C. Gross has filed this action, apparently, to
recover property. See doc. 1 at 3-5. He also seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2. Since he appears to be indigent, the Court
GRANTS his request. It, therefore, proceeds to screen his Complaint.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Gross’ Complaint must be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Gross has not identified any defendant -- he lists

“Preict officers, strangers, [and] non Precint Officers.”

Doc. 1 at 1.

Although the Court might assume he intends to name officers of a
particular police precinct, his substantive allegations provide no help in
identifying a possible defendant. See doc. 1 at 3-4. His allegations are
largely incoherent, although they do indicate that he seeks to have his

“property unseized by the SCMPD.” Id. at 3. There is no indication of
what property was seized, when, or why. The further allegations, in
unedited form, that Gross “was the owner of the Savannah Precint
SCMPD,” and “the owner of the planet and came from NASA after being
exalt from there planet,” make it clear that his claims are not grounded
in reality, and subject to immediate dismissal.
Complaints, such as this one, that lack an arguable factual or legal
basis are subject to immediate dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as a
frivolous claim on the Court’s time. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32 (1992) (the statutory obligation to dismiss “frivolous” claims
empowers a federal court not only to dismiss claims resting upon “‘an
indisputably meritless legal theory’” but also “‘those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless’”) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).

Such claims include those that describe

“‘fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal judges are
all too familiar.’”

Id. (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).

Plaintiff’s

factual allegations, to the extent that they are discernable at all, “rise to
the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton, 504 U.S. at
33. Therefore, his Complaint should be DISMISSED.
This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district

judge

assigned

to

this

action,
2

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72.3.

Within 14 days of

service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court
and serve a copy on all parties.

The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.” Any
request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the
Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The
district

judge

will

review

the

magistrate

judge’s

findings

and

recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp.,
648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F.
App’x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this
July, 2017.

3

25th

day of