Brunson v. United States Department of Justice of Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

Filing 14

ORDER this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process; adopting Report and Recommendations re 8 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 12/8/11.(mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Ronald Brunson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
United States Department of Justice
of Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:11-cv-2659-JFA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Ronald Brunson, brings this civil action against the named
defendants. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, “[p]laintiff’s Complaint is disjointed,
vague, and appears on its face to be comprised of delusional allegations.” (ECF No. 8).
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was issued a 42 million dollar check but that
the FBI stopped the check because it was “allege I was doing still Masturbation.” (See
ECF No. 7 at 3–6). Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff’s complaint should be summarily
dismissed without service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Report sets forth

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates
such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on October 24, 2011. Plaintiff filed
an Objection to Report and Recommendation on November 8, 2011. He also filed a letter
regarding a settlement offer on November 23, 2011.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this
court dismiss this case for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint is factually
frivolous; (2) this court cannot grant clemency for state or federal crimes; (3) the plaintiff
has sought monetary relief from defendants who are immune from such claims; (4) if
this case is a Bivens action,2 a Bivens action may not be brought against agencies of the
United States; (5) if this case has been brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”), the defendants are entitled to summary dismissal on the basis of sovereign
immunity.
In his Objection, the plaintiff raises a variety of issues, but he fails to address any
of the reasons that the Magistrate Judge gives for recommending that his case be
summarily dismissed. For example, he asked the court to investigate various documents,
and he provided the court with letters that he has received from various sectors of the
government in response to his correspondence. (See ECF No. 11, 11-8). Plaintiff also
reiterates factual allegations that he has previously made to this court. (See ECF No. 11                                                            
2

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
(establishing a direct cause of action under the United States Constitution against federal
officials for the violation of federal constitutional rights.

2

4). However, he fails to raise any issue that could rectify the many deficiencies of his
case, which the Magistrate Judge details in her Report.

Moreover, the plaintiff’s

Objection is comprised of more of the same “disjointed, vague, and . . . delusional”
allegations that the Magistrate Judge noted in her Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff
has not raised any specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, and in the
absence of specific objections, this court is not required to given any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the
Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation
fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The
Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 9, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District J 

3