Rouse v. Gibson et al

Filing 9

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 5 Report and Recommendation dismissing 3 Complaint and finding as moot 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel, finding as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 7 Motion for TRO; and finding as moot 8 Motion for Consolidation. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 6/23/17. (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
WESTERN DIVISION

Xezakia Rouse,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:17cv71

v.

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Julie Gibson, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s February 6, 2017
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 5). The parties were given proper notice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), including notice that the parties
would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner.
See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff did not
file objections to the R&R. Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw his Complaint
(Doc. 6); Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 7) and Motion for Consolidation
of Jurisdictions and Motion for Disclosure of Defendants (Doc. 8).
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter.

The Magistrate Judge reviewed

Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The Magistrate Judge

explained that Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights and federal statutes
based on allegations that various individuals and groups have tapped his phones, used
facial recognition software to identify and follow him, and also used “Remote Neural
Monitoring and Voice to Skull” technology against him.

The Magistrate Judge

concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim with an arguable basis in fact

or law, or are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court
finds no error in this conclusion. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s February 6, 2017
R&R (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4); Motion to Withdraw
his Complaint (Doc. 6); Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 7) and Motion for
Consolidation of Jurisdictions and Motion for Disclosure of Defendants (Doc. 8) are
DENIED as MOOT.
This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing
reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this R&R would not be taken in good faith and
therefore, Plaintiff is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free
to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals.

See Callihan v.

Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 199), overruling in part Floyd v. United States
Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

2