Ray v. Federal Communications Commission

Filing 7

JUDGMENT ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 3 Report and Recommendations ; denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. Signed by District Judge Curtis L Collier on 12/19/11. (JGK, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

ANTOINE RAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-354
COLLIER / LEE

JUDGMENT ORDER
On November 30, 2011, Plaintiff Antoine Ray (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Federal Communications Commission, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the 2002
Congress (Court File No. 2) as well as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Court File
No. 1). On November December 1, 2011 Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a report and
recommendation (“R&R”)concluding Plaintiff had failed to state a colorable, justiciable claim, and
therefore not reaching the merits of Plaintiff’s IFP application. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because neither
party raised an objection to the R&R during the fourteen day period provided under Rule 72 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report

1

Plaintiff sent two virtually incomprehensible letters to the Court on December 12 and
December 14 (Court File Nos. 4, 5). In one of these letters, Plaintiff appears to claim, among other
things, 1) he is being forced to commit “treasonest” acts through mind control; 2) on December 7,
2011, he used the same device being used to control his mind to broker a peace with a Afghan elder;
and 3) “a foreign intity [sic] is manipulating those people who were protesting outside your job”
(Court File No. 4). The other letter, in barely legible pencil, appears to cite Constitutional text and
various federal court cases, but offers no explanation for these citations. The Court does not
construe either of these letters as an objection to the R&R.

and recommendation (Court File No. 4) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP
motion (Court File No. 1), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE the case.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ENTERED AS A JUDGMENT
s/ Patricia L. McNutt
CLERK OF COURT