Ruther v. United States of America et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 ; dismissing complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; denying a certificate of appealability; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, acr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
L. RUTHER,

Plaintiff,

-vUNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
JOHN KUHN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-517
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND DISMISSING LAWSUIT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
L. Ruther, proceeding without an attorney and in forma pauperis, filed a handwritten,
incomprehensible document, which was docketed as a complaint. The magistrate judge
issued a report recommending the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or,
alternatively, because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
(ECF No. 6.) Ruther filed another handwritten, incomprehensible document, which has
been docketed as his objections. (ECF No. 7.)
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. '§
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de
novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are

frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to “pinpoint those
portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specifically consider”).
Ruther’s objections generally fail to identify the specific portions of the R&R to which
he objects. The complaint, which the magistrate judge reviewed, mentions events that
occurred in Kentucky. Exactly what did or did not occur in Kentucky is not sufficiently
explained in any comprehensible manner. In paragraph number 4, Ruther writes “James
Catipay Ky Bar take I $.” The Court is aware that James Catipay, an attorney licensed to
practice in Michigan, but working in California, was accused by the SEC of defrauding
investors in a business that recruits mass-tort plaintiffs.
The magistrate judge concluded that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to
confer subject-matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge located several other cases filed by
Ruther, all of which have been dismissed and called “incomprehensible.” In a case filed in
the Eastern District of Michigan, the court ordered Ruther to refile his complaint either in a
typed format or handwritten using every other line and using both upper and lower case
letter. See Ruther v. Michigan, No. 17-cv-10176, 2017 WL 2351971, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mich.
May 31, 2017). Ruther’s objections do not address the subject-matter deficiency identified
by the magistrate judge. The fact that attorney Catipay is or was licensed in Michigan may
assist in determining whether venue is proper, but that fact does not establish subject-matter
jurisdiction.

2

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this
Court. And, Ruther’s complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Finally, the Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. Reasonable jurists would not
disagree with this result.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 7, 2017

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

3