Brunson v. Central Intelligent Agency et al

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 11 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action with prejudice, and warning plaintiff that if he continues to file complaints with this court claiming that these defendants or others have injured him as described in this Complaint, this court will impose sanctions. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 07/13/2012. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Ronald Brunson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Central Intelligent Agency, and
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:12-cv-813-JFA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Ronald Brunson, brings this civil action against two federal
agencies. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to one million dollars in
relief because the defendant agencies failed to respond to a Federal Tort Claims Act
form. (ECF No. 1). 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 Magistrate Judge
further recommends that this court issue a clear warning to Plaintiff that he will subject
himself to the entry of sanctions by the court if he continues to submit the type of
frivolous cases based on delusional allegations against these defendants or others that he

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).

has been submitting in recent years. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
standards of law on these matters. Though the Report does not go into great detail
regarding the numerous cases that this Plaintiff has filed, this court notes that, prior to
this case, Plaintiff has filed sixteen cases with this court—all of which have been
dismissed, and many of which were found to be frivolous complaints.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 14, 2012. Rather than filing
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the plaintiff filed a
letter with the court on July 9, 2012. (ECF No. 15). In the letter, the Plaintiff asks this
court to postpone the dismissal of his case until an attorney can prepare documents. It is
unclear if he is asking this court to appoint an attorney for him in this matter.
This court declines to stay the dismissal of this case and further declines to appoint
an attorney to represent the Plaintiff in these frivolous claims. Because Plaintiff does not
raise any cognizable objections to the Report and Recommendation in his letter, it cannot
serve as Objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, 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 with
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
This court cautions Mr. Brunson that if he continues to file complaints with this
court claiming that these defendants or others have injured him as described in this
Complaint, this court will impose sanctions against Mr. Brunson. Specifically, this court
will require Mr. Brunson to pay the full filing fee prior to filing any cases with this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 13, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge