Flores v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 10 Report and Recommendation. 4 Motion to Transfer Case is DENIED. Plaintiff's action is DISMISSED as frivolous and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 12/1/2015. (gpre, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Eric Flores,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
United States Attorney General; Federal )
)
Bureau of Investigation,
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )

C/A No. 6:15-cv-4273-GRA-JDA

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before this Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin’s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, and filed on
November 5, 2015. ECF No. 10. For the reasons discussed herein, this Court
adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety.
Background
Defendant Eric Flores (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this civil action on October 16, 2015, seeking, among other things, a finding that
his constitutional rights have been violated.

ECF No. 1.

Under established

procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge Austin made a careful review of
the pro se complaint and now recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case
against Defendants as frivolous and without issuance and service of process. ECF
No. 10. The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Defendant on November 5,
2015, and was returned to this Court as undeliverable on November 13, 2015. ECF

Page 1 of 4

Nos. 11 & 13. No objections to the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation were
filed.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This
Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow
for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982).

However, a district court may not construct the plaintiff's legal

arguments for him, Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1993), nor is a district
court required to recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most
concerted efforts to unravel them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,
1277 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
Plaintiff brings this claim in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which
permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying
the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible
abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a district court to dismiss the case upon a
finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71

Page 2 of 4

(1976). In order for objections to be considered by a United States District Judge, the
objections must be timely filed and must specifically identify the portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which the party objects and the basis for the objections.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir.
1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). The deadline
for filing objections in this case was November 23, 2015.

ECF No. 10.

The

Defendant did not file any objections to Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report and
Recommendation. Accordingly, no objections need to be addressed.
After a thorough review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the
applicable law.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and

adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Multidistrict
Litigation to the District of Columbia is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED
as frivolous and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 1, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of its

Page 3 of 4

entry. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

Page 4 of 4