Akinro v. McDonald

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 6/8/10. (c/m af 6/8/10)(amf, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND FRANCIS AKINRO Plaintiff, v. MCDONALDS Defendant. *** MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland who holds himself out as a "Professor" and Department of Justice employee, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 1331 action on May 28, 2010, against a McDonalds restaurant on Pulaski Highway in Baltimore. His statement of facts alleges that: "On May 27, 2010, the security of McDonalds Mr. Wayne want to gun me down at McDonalds restaurant. He did not wear a security uniform against the law of Maryland and the United States. The court will have to investigate whether he have a gun permit." Paper No. 1 at 2. In his relief request, plaintiff seeks the award of $497,000,000,000,000.00 and court order to stop the "genocide" at McDonalds which limits Wi-Fi users to twenty minutes of internet use. Plaintiff also seeks the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment and the death penalty against the security and their "conspirators" at McDonalds. Id. at 3. Although plaintiff's indigency application contains information the court finds dubious,1 he shall be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This court may preliminarily review the complaint allegations before service of process and dismiss them sua sponte if satisfied that the complaint has no factual or legal basis. See Neitzke v.
Plaintiff claims that he receives $3,063.00 in monthly retirement income; has been employed by the U.S. Department of Justice since July of 2009; and has $200,000.00 accumulated at three separate
1

* * * CIVIL ACTION NO. JFM-10-1398

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1314 (4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995). As explained by the Supreme Court in Neitzke: "Examples of [factually baseless lawsuits] are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, with which federal district judges are all too familiar." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. at 328. Even when affording the pro se complaint and accompanying materials a generous construction, the court finds no basis to allow the action to go forward or to require supplementation. The complaint shall be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). A separate Order follows.

Date: __June 8, 2010___________

/s/_______________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge

banks. Paper No. 2.

2