Boyd et al v. United States of America et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 6 Report and Recommendation dismissing with prejudice 5 Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 2/21/17. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
PRESTON LEE BOYD, et al.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
) Case No.: 1:16cv802
) Judge Michael R. Barrett
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 6). In response, Plaintiff Preston Lee Boyd filed a document identified as
a “Complaint and Status” (Doc. 7), which the Court treats as objections to the R&R.
The Magistrate Judge set forth the facts of this case, and the same will not be repeated
here except to the extent necessary to respond to Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiffs Preston Lee
Boyd and Martain Boyd Thompkins 1, filed an in forma pauperis civil complaint against Wayne
County, 36 District Court, 3rd Circuit Court, Federal Court, Sheriff’s Department, and the State
of Michigan (“Defendants”) alleging their Native American treaty rights have been violated,
asking the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to be their fiduciary and reserve their rights under
UCC1-207 and UCC 1-308, and for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 5).
Upon initial screening, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims
with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Magistrate Judge came to two
primary conclusions. First, Plaintiffs’ complaint lacks factual content or context from which the
Court could reasonably infer federal jurisdiction over any of their claims. (Doc. 6, PageID 65).
Plaintiff Martain Boyd Thompkins did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.
And second, none of the Defendants are subject to suit (Id. at PageID 67). Plaintiff Boyd objects
to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Plaintiff’s objections will be addressed accordingly.
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received on a
dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review,
the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review: “[a] general
objection to the entirety of the Magistrate [Judge]’s report has the same effect as would a failure
to object.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Nevertheless, the objections of a petitioner appearing pro se will be construed liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Plaintiffs’ claims and his objections to the R&R are largely premised on the “sovereign
citizen” theory. Plaintiff Boyd argues that due to his “status as a Sovereign Indigenous, Native
American Moor . . . statutes and codes have nothing to do with [him].” (Doc. 7, PageID 70).
Similar arguments that a person is a sovereign citizen and thus, not subject to the laws of the
United States have uniformly been rejected as lacking any foundation in law. United States v.
Mundt, 29 F. 3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994). The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Mundt
established that such arguments are without merit and are patently frivolous. Id. at 237. Plaintiff
Boyd lists his address as 4641 Grand River Ave. Detroit, MI 48208. (Doc 7, PageID 70). It is
undisputed that he is domiciled in Michigan. As a Michigan citizen, he is subject to the laws of
the United States.
Plaintiff Boyd further argues in his objections that “Pope Francis has stated this year is
the year of the JUBILEE!! In the year of Jubilee all debts are to be forgiven and all land given
back to the original owner (Leviticus 25:13) . . . .” (Emphasis in the original). (Doc. 7, PageID
70). Attached to Plaintiff Boyd’s objections are several documents from the Pope, which he
argues “stat[es] our position by way of the Vatican.” (Doc. 7, PageID 71); (Doc. 7-1). General
objections to the entirety of the Magistrate Judge’s report have the same effect as a failure to
object. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. Plaintiff Boyd’s objections to the R&R are without merit and
are insufficient to direct the Court’s attention to any particular issues contained therein.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Boyd’s objections are OVERRULED.
Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiff Boyd’s Objections (Doc. 7) are OVERRULED
and the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims are (Doc. 5) DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court
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?