Jackson v. Obama et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 7 Report and Recommendations. This civil action is dismissed. Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 6/2/2017 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MADIE RUTH JACKSON

§
§
v.
§
§
BARACK OBAMA,
§
JULIE THEATER,
§
BEVERLY STRICKLAND,
§
FELICIA DUNN BURKES,
§
TONYA WYDER,
§
FAINT ROBERT WALKER Judge,
§
NESCATERICA BATES,
§
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
§
PRINCE WILLIAM WALES,
§
KATE MIDDLETON,
§
OPRAH WINFREY,
§
JAY Z,
§
BEYONCE KNOWLES,
§
WANDA SMITH,
§
RONYELLE RHODES,
§
HIGHLAND HOSPITAL DOCTORS, §
MICHELLE OBAMA, and
§
WLOX.
§

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO.: 1:17cv97-HSO-JCG

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [7] AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation [7] of United
States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, entered in this case on May 3, 2017,
recommending that this civil action be dismissed. R. & R. [7] at 1. After
reviewing the record and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Report
and Recommendation [7] should be adopted in its entirety as the finding of the
Court, and that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, who is pro se and proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint
[1] in this Court on April 4, 2017, against Nescaterica Bates, Felicia Dunn Burkes,
Highland Hospital Doctors, Jay Z, Beyonce Knowles, Kate Middleton, Barack
Obama, Michelle Obama, Ronyelle Rhodes, Wanda Smith, Beverly Strickland, Julie
Theater, United States Government, WLOX, Prince William Wales, Faint Robert
Walker, Oprah Winfrey, and Tonya Wyder. Compl. [1] at 1-2. Plaintiff claims
that Defendants Barack Obama, Prince William, and Julie Theater are harassing
her in various ways, including recording her, torturing her, and wiretapping her.
See Compl. [1] at 6-7. The Complaint [1] contains no allegations regarding the
other fifteen Defendants named in the caption. See id.
This lawsuit is nearly identical to a suit filed by Plaintiff on October 17, 2016,
against most of these same Defendants. This Court dismissed the prior suit on
March 22, 2017, on grounds that Plaintiff’s claims were factually frivolous and
because the Court lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See Jackson v.
Obama, Civil No. 1:16-cv-379-HSO-JCG.
On April 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order [4] in this case requiring
Plaintiff to submit a brief demonstrating that federal subject-matter jurisdiction
exists and that her claims are not factually frivolous. Order [4] at 1. Plaintiff was
further ordered to demonstrate why the fifteen Defendants against whom she had
stated no allegations should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
2

relief may be granted. Id. at 1-2. The Court advised Plaintiff that this case would
be dismissed without further notice to Plaintiff if she failed to file the required brief,
and she was further warned that she may be subject to sanctions for filing
repetitive and frivolous lawsuits, including being prohibited from filing future pro se
complaints in this Court without first obtaining leave to do so. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff filed a Response Brief on April 17, 2017, that did not address the
existence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See Pl.’s Br. [5]. Plaintiff
attempted to comply with the Court’s Order [4] to explain with factual specificity
why she had sued each Defendant, explaining that Defendant Obama is “using a
remote to fill [her] with each individual [Defendant] named on the case now. . . All
defendants pays [her] not to think for Barack Obama.” Id. at 2.
The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation [7] on May 3,
2017, recommending that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to demonstrate
federal subject-matter jurisdiction. R. & R. [7] at 1. The Magistrate Judge found
that dismissal is also warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the federal
statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings, because Plaintiff’s claims are
factually frivolous. Id. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Plaintiff
should receive a sanctions warning because she has filed two repetitive and
frivolous lawsuits within a 6-month time period. Id. at 8. Plaintiff has not filed
any objection to the Report and Recommendation [7] to date, and the time for doing

3

so has passed.1
II.

ANALYSIS

Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact
and recommendation, a court need not conduct a de novo review of it.

See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which
objection is made.”). In such cases, a court need only review the proposed findings
of fact and recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th

Cir. 1989).
Based on the record before this Court, and having conducted the required
review, the Court is of the opinion that the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

The Court has reviewed

and construed liberally the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] and
Response Brief [5] to the Court’s Order [4] requiring briefing on jurisdiction, and

A copy of the Report and Recommendation [7] was mailed to Plaintiff at her address of
record via certified mail on May 3, 2017. The United States Postal Service website reflects
that the Report and Recommendation [7] was delivered to Plaintiff’s residence on May 8,
2017. See USPS TRACKING,
https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tRef=fullpage&tLc=2&text28777=&tLabels=
70141820000149952333%2C.
Plaintiff was required to file any objections by May 22, 2017, pursuant to Local
Uniform Civil Rule 72(a)(3). On May 23, 2017, Plaintiff called the Court to inquire
whether she could obtain an extension of the deadline to file objections. Plaintiff was
informed that any request for an extension needed to be submitted to the Court in writing.
As of this date, no request for an extension has been filed.
1

4

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s claims must be
dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Even if the Court did

have jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible.”

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court may impose sanctions upon finding that
an individual has filed repetitive, frivolous lawsuits, including refusing to allow the
individual to file additional pro se complaints without first obtaining leave of Court
to do so. See Tribbit v. Ward, 81 F.3d 156, 156 (5th Cir. 1996).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendation [7] of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo entered in
this case on May 3, 2017, is adopted in its entirety as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, this civil action is
DISMISSED.

Plaintiff is hereby warned that the Court may impose sanctions

when it finds that an individual has abused process by filing repetitive, frivolous
lawsuits. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 2nd day of June, 2017.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5