Richman v. United States Government

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS 7 . Signed by Judge James D. Todd on 7/7/16. (Todd, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ELROY LADELL RICHMAN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 16-2403-JDT-tmp

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL,
CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On June 7, 2016, Plaintiff Elroy Ladell Richman, a resident of West Memphis,
Arkansas, filed a pro se complaint on the form used for commencing actions pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1), accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 2). On June 8, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham issued an order granting leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June
17, 2016. (ECF No. 6.)
On June 17, 2016, Magistrate Judge Pham issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) in which he recommended dismissing the case sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 7.) Objections to the R&R were due on or before July 5, 2016.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). However, Plaintiff has filed
no objections.

In Plaintiff’s original complaint, he appears to allege that after leaving a Regions Bank
in West Memphis, Arkansas, he was harassed by police officers and accused of trespassing.
When the officers ordered him to put his hands on the front of the police vehicle, Plaintiff
tried to run away. He alleges that he was tased by one officer and that another tripped him,
injuring his toes. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff contends that “[a]ll these actions was under
government jurisdiction,” and wants the report reviewed by the Supreme Court. (Id. at 3.)
He seeks monetary damages. (Id.)
In Plaintiff’s amended complaint, he makes various rambling and incoherent
statements, alleging that the United States has used technology and higher sciences to cause
metals to collect in his body, interrupt his speech, impair him with undetectable devices in
his left hip, and take partial control over his nerves. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) He again seeks
monetary damages. (Id. at 3.)
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Pham determined that Plaintiff’s allegations in this case
do not state any claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which applies only to persons and entities
acting under color of state law. The United States acts under color of federal law. The
Magistrate Judge also determined that Plaintiff’s claims against the United States are barred
by sovereign immunity. See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 296 (1976) (monetary
relief); United States v. Certain Land Situated in City of Detroit, 361 F.3d 305, 307 (6th Cir.
2004) (injunctive relief). Plaintiff has not identified a waiver of sovereign immunity for any
claims asserted in this case.

2

The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Pham’s conclusions. Therefore, the
R&R is ADOPTED, and this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)(iii).
It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), that any
appeal in this matter by Plaintiff is not taken in good faith. Leave to appeal in forma
pauperis is, therefore, DENIED. Accordingly, if Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he must
also pay the full $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
supporting affidavit in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Clerk is directed to prepare a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James D. Todd
JAMES D. TODD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3