Phillips v. U.S.A.

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 4 Memorandum and Recommendations and granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Although Plaintiff's moiton to proceed in forma pauperis is allowed, this matter is dismissed. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/23/11. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

No.5:11-CV-168-BO

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DAVID PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of
United States Magistrate Judge David Daniel regarding Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and for frivolity review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court ADOPTS
the M&R and DISMISSES Plaintiffs complaint.
BACKGROUND
According to the M&R, Plaintiffs Complaint lists the acts complained of in this suit as
"Lack of investigation of reported bombings against the U.S.A." and "Lack of investigation of
torture, kidnapping, theft of music, movies, corporate buildings" and requests relief in the form of" I
Billions Dollars." CompI. [DE-l-1] at 2, 4. However, the Complaint is otherwise devoid of any facts
or jurisdictional foundations. The Magistrate Judge was unable to discern any factual or jurisdictional
basis for Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant. The M&R thus recommended dismissal.
The Plaintiff failed to file objections.

DISCUSSION
The Court adopts the M&R because Plaintiff has failed to object to it and because the
M&R is not in plain error.
Under § 1915, a claim proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time if it is
frivolous. § 1915( e )(2)(B)(i). A complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To make a frivolity determination, a
court may designate a magistrate judge to submit proposed findings of fact and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(B). A district court is only required to review an
M&R de novo if the plaintiff specifically objects to it or in cases of plain error.jQ.; Thomas v.
Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Here, Plaintiff does object to the M&R. The M&R was also not in plain error. The Court
thus adopts the M&R.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Although Plaintiffs
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is ALLOWED, this matter is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED, this ~ day of July, 2011.

ih~W.
~lliNCE

/JJ!­

W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD E

2