Younce v. Beavers et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 7 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's claim is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Judgement will be entered herein. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 9/1/11 (scp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HAROLD D. YOUNCE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv89-KS-MTP
WILEY J. BEAVERS, ET AL
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC.
This cause is before the Court sua sponte for case management purposes upon receipt of
the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint . The Magistrate Judge has reviewed Plaintiff’s pleadings
and recommends this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). The
Magistrate Judge has filed a Report and Recommendation herein . The Court has considered
the pleadings on file and the Report and Recommendation and finds that the Recommendation
should be adopted.
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Harold D. Younce, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his Complaint
 on April 20, 2011, naming the following Defendants: Sean D. Alfortish, Wiley J. Beavers,
Michael E. Holoway, Stephen London, and Ronna Steel (all purportedly attorneys). Pursuant to
the court’s Order  directing Plaintiff to clarify his claims, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint  on July 11, 2011, naming the following additional Defendants: Raylyn R. Beevers,
Robert Creely, Philip P. Rapp, Todd Johnson, Seafarers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO, Seafarers Welare and Benefit Plan and
Contracts "Union," John Aloysius Hanley, Martin Macisso, Jean Couvillion, Dr. John
Watermeier, Dr. Amusa, 24-Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, Judge
Ross Ladart, Judge Jo Ellen V. Grant, Peter J. Fitzgerald, Judge Susan M. Chehardy, Judge
Edward A. Dufresne, Jr., Judge Fredericka H. Wicker, Judge Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., Judge
Jeffrey P. Victory, Judge Jeannette Theriot Knoll, Judge Chet D. Traylor, Judge Catherine D.
Kitty-Kimball, Judge John L. Weimer and Judge Bernette J. Johnson.
Plaintiff is a Forrest County, Mississippi resident. The majority of the Defendants reside
in Louisiana; one Defendant resides in Mississippi; one Defendant resides in Delaware; one
Defendant resides in Maryland; one Defendant resides in Maine; and one Defendant resides in
Florida. Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint allege numerous causes of action
including violation of the Jones Act, due process violations, breach of contract, malpractice, and
equal protection violations.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation this Court is required to “make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Longmire v.
Gust, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (Party is “entitled to a de novo review by an Article III
Judge as to those issues to which an objection is made.”) Such review means that this Court will
examine the entire record and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court is not
required, however, to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Koetting v.
Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) nor need it consider objections that are frivolous,
conclusive or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421
(5th Cir. 1997). No factual objection is raised when a petitioner merely reurges arguments
contained in the original petition. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).
III. PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Mr. Younce, in his Objection to the Report and Recommendation, goes to great length to
stress this Court’s duty and to make allegations concerning unethical conduct and law violations
in the State of Louisiana. The Objections filed by Mr. Younce show great passion and belief in
what he is saying and doing but the Objections miss the point of the Report and
Recommendation. This case has no business in this court. It is a Louisiana case and there are no
ties to the State of Mississippi. Venue is improper. This case was filed and process has not been
issued. There has been no discovery propounded. This Court finds that the Recommendation of
Judge Parker is correct and that this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) this Court has conducted an independent review of
the record and a de novo review of the matters raised by the Objection. For the reasons set forth
above, this Court concludes that Mr. Younce’s Objections lack merit and should be overruled.
The Court further concludes that the proposed Report and Recommendation is an accurate
statement of the facts and the correct analysis of the law in all regards. Therefore, the Court
accepts, approves and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions
contained in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s
Report and Recommendation is accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and that Harold D.
Younce’s claim is dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED this, the 1st day of September, 2011.
s/ Keith Starrett
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?