Hurt v. D. C. Metro Transit Transportation et al

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING 4 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 3/10/2016. Copy mailed to Tyrone Hurt, 422 Chesapake St. SE Apt 33, Washington, DC 20032 via US Mail on 3/10/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-00468-F
TYRONEHURT,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)

)

~

D.C. METRO TRANSIT
TRANSPORTATION, THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT,
1946 Hague Germany, THE
INTERNATIONAL PEACE COURT, 1946
Hague Germany, and CHIEFS OF POLICE
and all law enforcement officials,

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.
This matter is before the court for consideration of the Memorandum and
Recommendation (hereafter "M&R") [DE-4] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert B.
Jones, Jr. Therein, Judge Jones recommends dismissal of pro se Plaintiff Tyrone Hurt's
Complaint [DE-l] as frivolous. See M&R [DE-4] at 4. Hurt has filed an Objection [DE-5] to the
M&R.
A district court may "designate a magistrate judge ... to submit . . . proposed findings of
fact and recommendations for the disposition" of a variety of motions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B).
I

The court then must "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)(l)(C).
Upon review of the record, "the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), this court must dismiss an action found to be
frivolous or malicious, which fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

money damages from a defendant who is immune from such recovery. See Cochran v. Morris,
73 F.3d 1310 (4th Cir. 1996) (discussing sua sponte dismissal for frivolity under predecessor
statute 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). A complaint is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 US. 319, 325 (1989). Although in conducting a frivolity
review a pro se plaintiff's pleadings are held to "less stringent standards" than those drafted by
attorneys, White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 722-23 (4th Cir. 1989), the court is not required to
accept a pro se plaintiff's contentions as true. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
Judge Jones observes that Plaintiff has failed to correct numerous deficiencies with
regard to his Complaint. M&R [DE-4] at 4. Judge Jones concludes that the Complaint "is largely
illegible, and any factual basis for [Plaintiff's] claims against seemingly disparateDefendants,
such as D.C. Metro Transit and the International Criminal Court, is wholly .unclear." !d.
Accordingly, Judge Jones recommends dismissing the Complaint as frivolous.
Plaintiff's Objection, like his Complaint, is almost entirely illegible. See Obj. [DE-5].
The court is unable to decipher either the claims Plaintiff attempts to assert, or Plaintiff's
objections to the M&R. Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to correct this deficiency and has
failed to do so. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the recommendation [DE-4] as its own;
Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED as frivolous.
SO ORDERED.
/

This, the _lPofMarch, 2016.

J
SC.FOX
Senior United States District Judge

2