Lacy v. Braeburn Capital et al
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 1:12-cv-941
HON. JANET T. NEFF
BRAEBURN CAPITAL, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff William Lacy, proceeding in forma pauperis, initiated the present action against
Defendants Braeburn Capital and “Apple” on September 4, 2012, asserting that Defendants are
“[r]acketeering under the Sherman Antitrust Act to [s]ubdue [a]dvertising and [m]edia [c]ompetition
in the U.S. [m]arketplace” (Dkt 1). On October 1, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and
Recommendation (R & R), recommending that the action be dismissed upon initial screening on
grounds that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted (Dkt 9). See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation (Dkts 10, 11 & 13). Plaintiff has also since filed two documents that
were docketed as “supplements” (Dkts 21-22). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and
issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff’s three separately-filed objections and supplements to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation contain numerous incoherent, unsupported allegations relating to Steve Jobs,
Braeburn Capital, and Apple.1 The objections and supplements also include pictures that fail to
provide any support for his racketeering assertion and instead merely add to the confusion of his
argument (Dkt 11 at 4; Dkt 13 at 2; Dkt 21 at 2-5; Dkt 22 at 6-21). As a result of his accusations,
Plaintiff “[r]ecommend[s] the U.S. Federal Court and the U.S. Marshall [s]erve Braeburn Capital
and Apple for [v]iolation of U.S. Antitrust Laws” (Dkt 10 at 7). Plaintiff’s argument is without
As stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, “[p]ursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted unless the ‘[f]actual allegations [are] enough to raise a right for relief above
the speculative level on the assumption that all of the complaint’s allegations are true’” (Dkt 9 at 1)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007)). The Magistrate Judge further
correctly noted that in order to satisfy this Rule, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face’” (Dkt 9 at 1) (quoting Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Plaintiff’s complaint, as well as his three supplemented
objections to the R & R, contain nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions that fail to provide
any specific factual support for a claim of racketeering. Because “Plaintiff has failed … to allege
For example, Plaintiff asserts that “Steve Jobs[’] [c]haracter is one which cannot afford to
[lose] to a [c]ompetitor in the [m]arketplace, and a [d]isdain for [c]ompetition in the [m]arketplace
which can and [w]ill [b]eat Apple’s [p]roducts and [s]ervices in the [m]arketplace. Steve Jobs
[c]rossed the [l]ine to go ‘[t]hermonuclear’ [a]gainst [c]ompetition in the U.S. [m]arketplace, and
[a]ntitrust and [i]llegal [i]nfluence [l]ines were [c]rossed in order to [p]rotect Braeburn Capital’s
[f]uture [m]arket [s]tanding and [p]rofits” (Dkt 10 at 9).
any facts, which if proven, would entitle him to prevail on any claims asserted in his complaint” (Dkt
9 at 3), the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that his complaint be dismissed for failure to
state a claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R are denied as without merit.
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58.
For the above reasons and because this action was filed in forma pauperis, this Court also certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 206, 211-12 (2007).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the objections (Dkts 10, 11 & 13) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation (Dkt 9) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of the Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
Dated: December ___, 2012
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?