Foy v. United States of America et al

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 7 Memorandum & Recommendation in its entirety; denying as moot 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 4 Motion for Recusal, 6 Motion to Expedite and Motion for Recusal and 8 Motion for Recusal. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 12/5/2016. Copy sent to Richard C. Foy, 4424 Tetbury Place, Raleigh, NC 27613-4029 via US Mail on 12/5/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-00391-F
RICHARD C. FOY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the court are the following:

(1) the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [DE-7] ofUnited
States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding prose Plaintiff
Richard C. Foy's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE-l];
(2) Plaintiffs Motion to Recuse [DE-4];
(3) his Motion to Expedite Consideration [DE-6]; and
(4) his Motion to Petition the Courts [DE-8].
I. Discussion
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the United States of America; Barack Hussien
Obama, President of the United States of America; the U.S. Department of Justice; the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
have violated the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 28
U.S.C. § 4101. Compl. [DE-1-1] at 2. Further, Plaintiff requests that this court order the House
of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, order the
Department of Justice to proceed against the media for failing to investigate specific government
officials, and enter an injunction that stops the City of Raleigh from working on Dorothea Dix
Hospital property. Id at 10-11, 13. Finally, Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including $100

million in compensatory damages and an unstated amount of punitive damages. !d. at 13.
On November 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a M&R [DE-7], in which he
recommended that Plaintiffs case be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. !d. at 4.
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections
to the M&R and the consequences if they failed to do so. !d. at 4.-5. On November 21, 2016,
Plaintiff filed objections [DE-8] to the Magistrate Judge's M&R.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). This court is charged with making a

de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which specific objections are
made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). In the absence of a timely-filed objection, a district court need not conduct a

de novo review, but instead must "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005).
In his objections, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any additional facts or arguments that
adequately dispute Judge Jones' findings. In fact, Plaintiffs objections reinforce for the court
that the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. Based on a de novo review of the record, the
court concludes that the M&R should be adopted, the case should be dismissed without
prejudice, and all pending motions should be denied as moot.

2

II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's M&R [DE-7] in its entirety;
(2) Plaintiffs complaint [DE-1-1] is DISMISSED without prejudice;
(3) All pending motions [DE-l, -4, -6, -8] are DENIED as moot; and
(4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
This, the ____I_ day of December, 2016.

3