Banks v. Director, Office of Science and Technology Behavioral Modification Unit et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson 5 , GRANTING pltf leave to proceed IFP, pltf's complaint 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice, noting any appeal from this order deemed to be frivolous & not taken in good faith, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE this case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/23/14. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDERICK BANKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY, BEHAVIORAL
MODIFICATION UNIT, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-005
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2014, upon consideration of the report of
Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 5), recommending that the court grant
plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but further recommending that the court
dismiss his complaint (Doc. 1) without leave to amend, and, following an independent
review of the record, it appearing to the court that the pro se plaintiff’s complaint is
indeed noncompliant with federal pleading requirements and largely composed of
disconnected and incredible allegations as the magistrate judge depicts, and the court
further agreeing with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the doctrine of res judicata
precludes the above-captioned action as the claims made by the pro se plaintiff have
previously been addressed on the merits by the undersigned, see Banks v. Central
Intelligence Agency, No. 13-cv-2664, Doc. 4 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2013); Banks v. Unknown
Number of Federal Judges and States, No. 13-cv-2095, Doc. 5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2013),
and remain without merit, and it also appearing that amendment could not cure the
deficiencies identified in the report because the pro se plaintiff has not articulated any

civil rights claim but instead merely repeats allegations previously declared frivolous,
see Fletcher-Hardee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, 482 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007)
(observing that leave to amend should ordinarily be granted unless amendment would be
futile or result in undue delay), and noting that plaintiff filed objections1 (Doc. 6) to the
report on January 16, 2014, and the court finding the magistrate judge’s analysis to be
thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the court further finding
plaintiff’s objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson’s
report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

3.

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

4.

Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good
faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).