Davis v. Liberty Media Corporation et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION on 8 MOTION to Dismiss filed by John C Malone, Liberty Media Corporation. Objections to M&R due by 9/21/2021. ORDER denying 10 MOTION to Amend 1 Complaint, 11 MOTION to Extend Time for Service of Process, 16 MOTION for Leave to File, 17 MOTION to Extend Time for Service of Process and 18 MOTION to Compel First Appearance. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 9/7/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-00100-RJC-DSC
ANDRE ANTONIO DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION et.
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Complaint”
(document #8) and Plaintiff’s “Motion[s] to Amend” (documents ##10 and 16), “Motion[s] to
Extend Time for Service of Process” (documents ##11 and 17) and a document captioned as
“Motion to Compel First Appearance [which recites Plaintiff’s pro se status but seeks no relief]”
(document #18) as well as the parties’ briefs and exhibits.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and these Motions are now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Plaintiff has filed sixteen lawsuits in this District over the past year.

He alleges the

existence of a vast conspiracy among high ranking governmental officials, including a former
President of the United States, current and former cabinet members, current and former employees
of the United States Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, other
governmental agencies and actors, numerous wealthy and noteworthy individuals, and multiple
prominent corporations to improperly access his computer devices, track him, and share his

Case 3:21-cv-00100-RJC-DSC Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3

information and whereabouts with others around the globe. Four of Plaintiff’s lawsuits have been
dismissed as frivolous. See NCWD File Nos. 3:20-cv-542-FDW-DSC, 3:21-cv-150-GCM, 3:21cv-228-GCM and 3:21-cv-335-GCM.
Here Plaintiff restates his bare-bones conspiracy theory, this time against a group of
Defendants who provide internet and other media services. Neither the Complaint nor any of the
proposed Amended Complaints contain factual allegations that would support an actionable claim.
A complaint is deemed frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Adams v. Rice,
40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Legally frivolous claims are based on an ‘indisputedly meritless
legal theory’ and including ‘claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not
exist’”).
Construing pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint liberally, the Court concludes that his allegations
are frivolous and he has failed to allege any actionable claim. Accordingly, the undersigned
respectfully recommends that Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (document #8) be
granted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion[s] to Amend” (documents ##10 and 16),
“Motion[s] to Extend Time for Service of Process” (documents ##11 and 17) and “Motion to
Compel First Appearance” (document #18) are DENIED.
RECOMMENDATION
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Complaint” (document #8) be GRANTED.

Case 3:21-cv-00100-RJC-DSC Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
The parties are hereby advised that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(c), written objections
to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the recommendation contained in this
Memorandum must be filed within fourteen days after service of same. Failure to file objections
to this Memorandum with the Court constitutes a waiver of the right to de novo review by the
District Judge. Diamond v. Colonial Life, 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wells v. Shriners
Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1365 (4th Cir.
1989). Moreover, failure to file timely objections will also preclude the parties from raising such
objections on appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985); Diamond, 416 F.3d at 316; Page
v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003); Wells, 109 F.3d at 201; Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d
841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation and Order
to pro se Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants, and to the Honorable Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Signed: September 7, 2021

Case 3:21-cv-00100-RJC-DSC Document 23 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3