Clark v. Midfast Bank et al

Filing 9

ORDER re #8 Objections filed by Torrance Clark. For the reasons set forth in document, Clark's objections are overruled. The Court's judgment dated March 13, 2024, dismissing Clark's complaint with prejudice, shall remain in effect. Signed by Judge Sarah S Vance on 03/27/2024.(ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TORRANCE CLARK

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 24-335

MIDFIRST BANK ET AL.

SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER
Plaintiff Torrance Clark, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Midfirst Bank,
Midland Mortgage, Wells Fargo, and Citi Group Insurance.1

Chief

Magistrate Judge Michael North issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that Clark’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice
as legally frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.2
The Court did not receive any objections from Clark before the
expiration of his deadline to object to the R&R. On March 12, 2024, the Court
reviewed the R&R for clear error, and, finding none, adopted the R&R as its
opinion. 3 See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th
Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983)
1
2
3

R. Doc. 1.
R. Doc. 4.
R. Doc. 54.

(“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”).

The Court entered judgment dismissing Clark’s

complaint with prejudice.4
On March 22, 2024, the Court received a letter from Clark containing
his objections to the R&R.5 Clark dated the letter March 4, 2024, four days
before the objection deadline. 6

The envelope used to transmit Clark’s

objections bears a first-class mail stamp dated March 18, 2024, and a New
Orleans, Louisiana, postmark dated March 19, 2024.7 The envelope also
contains a stamp from the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center (“JPCC”),
where Clark is housed, stating that the mailing is uncensored and that JPCC
is not responsible for its contents. 8 There is no evidence that shows when
the letter was first received and processed by the JPCC prison mailing
system.
Under the “prison mailbox rule,” “a pro se prisoner’s written objections
to a magistrate’s report and recommendations must be deemed filed and
served at the moment they are forwarded to prison officials for delivery to

4
5
6
7
8

R. Doc. 6.
R. Doc. 7.
Id. at 1.
Id. at 2.
Id.
2

the district court,” regardless of when the court itself receives the objections.
Thompson v. Rasberry, 993 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993), cited with
approval in Walker v. Savers, 583 F. App’x 474, 475 (5th Cir. 2014). “[T]he
burden is on the pro se prisoner to show when his pleading was tendered to
prison officials for delivery to the court.” United States v. Duran, 934 F.3d
407, 412 (5th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted).
Ordinarily, the Court affords a pro se plaintiff the opportunity to
provide evidence, such as prison mail logs or affidavits, to prove that he
placed his objections to the R&R in the prison mail system in a timely
manner. See id. at 412; see also United States v. Craun, 51 F.3d 1043, 1995
WL 153048, at *1 (5th Cir. 1995) (giving plaintiff thirty days to submit such
evidence). Nevertheless, the Court will not require Clark to produce such
evidence because it finds that, even if his objections were timely “filed and
served,” Thompson, 993 F.2d at 515, the stated objections provide no
meaningful response or objection to the R&R that would alter the judgment
of this Court.
In his objections letter, Clark first objects that he lacks the means to
obtain legal forms and documents to file with the Court because JPCC has no
law library, and his requests for the forms have been denied on several
occasions. Clark further states that he does not have access to financial forms

3

or the ability to timely mail his documents, and that he has made
arrangements for all of the documents filed in the original state court
proceeding to be transferred from the state court to this Court.
Assuming, arguendo, that Clark’s objections were timely under the
prisoner mailbox rule, the Court would apply de novo review to the parts of
the R&R to which Clark objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); see also Hernandez v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 619, 620 (5th Cir. 1983)
(holding that de novo determination requires “the district court to arrive at
its own, independent conclusion about those portions of the magistrate’s
report to which objection is made[, which] is not satisfied by a mere review
of the magistrate’s report itself”); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,
676 (1980) (holding that de novo determination “permit[s] whatever
reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion,
[chooses]

to

place

on

a

magistrate’s

proposed

findings

and

recommendations”). Any portion of the R&R to which Clark did not object
is reviewed for clear error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s
note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.”).

4

Here, Clark’s objections provide no meaningful response or objection
to the R&R. In recommending dismissal of his complaint, Magistrate Judge
North concluded that Clark’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted because it named only corporate entities as defendants,
none of whom may be considered as state actors subject to liability under
§ 1983. 9 Magistrate Judge North further determined that Clark had failed to
identify an underlying constitutional violation, which is required to state a
valid § 1983 claim. 10 Lastly, to the extent Clark sought a federal court order
directing the state court judge presiding over the state proceeding to act,
Magistrate Judge North concluded that the Court has no such power to direct
a state court or its judicial officers in the performance of their duties when
mandamus is the only relief sought. 11 Clark’s objections do not respond to or
address any of these reasons underlying Magistrate Judge North’s
recommendation for dismissal. Therefore, these portions of the R&R would
be reviewed for clear error. Having previously conducted a clear error
analysis of the R&R in its March 12, 2024, Order, and, having found none,
the Court finds no need to alter its judgment dismissing Clark’s complaint
with prejudice in light of Clark’s written objections.

9
10
11

R. Doc. 4 at 3.
Id.
Id. at 4.
5

I.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Clark’s objections are OVERRULED. The

Court’s judgment dated March 13, 2024, dismissing Clark’s complaint with
prejudice, shall remain in effect.

27th day of March, 2024.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6