Hayes v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 7 Report and Recommendation for sua sponte Dismissal. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 8/8/2017. (McCalla, Jon)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY D. HAYES,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-2414-JPM-dkv

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE
DISMISSAL

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation,” filed June 27,
2017. (ECF No. 7.) In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends
“that Hayes’s complaint be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and
(ii), and judgment be entered for the defendants.” (Id. at PageID 75.)
Plaintiff has not filed a timely objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.
I.

BACKGROUND
This action involves claimed violations of (1) breach of fiduciary responsibility under 8

U.S.C. § 1481, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and unspecified public policies and acts of Congress; and
(2) false imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001, 5 U.S.C. 552(b), and 42 U.S.C. 408 (8), (9)(b).
(See ECF No. 1 at PageIDs 10-11.)
In a Complaint filed on June 15, 2017, Anthony D. Hayes (“Plaintiff”), who is
proceeding pro se, asserts that “[t]his matter involves Kidnapping, Human Trafficking, and the
theft of assets of the Plaintiff’s Corporate Trust.” (Id. at PageID 2.) Plaintiff alleges he was first
arrested on June 15, 2016 (Id. at PageID 7; ECF No. 7 at PageID 65) and again on October 18
2016. (Id.) On this second date, Plaintiff requested his driver’s license be reinstated, but was

denied. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges Defendants accepted “Non-Negotiable Instruments” that
Plaintiff tendered, but Defendants “refused and failed to adjust accounts to zero,” although
Plaintiff recognizes that “no validation of contract was ever made.” (ECF No. 1 at PageID 8;
ECF No. 7 at PageID 65-66.) Plaintiff alleges that on March 22, 2017, his request for his
driver’s license to be reinstated was once again denied, and he was further forced to sign an
unspecified document “under duress for threat of incarceration.” (ECF No. 1 at PageID 8-9;
ECF No. 7 at PageID 66.) Plaintiff further alleges his repeated attempts to bring his account
balances to zero were repeatedly denied. (Id.)
On June 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Pro Se Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On the same day,
Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), which was granted in an Order dated
June 20, 2017. (ECF No. 6.) Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo filed the Report and
Recommendation on June 27, 2017, recommending the case be dismissed sua sponte for failure
to state a claim. (ECF No. 8.) No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed
prior to the deadline of July 11, 2017. On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Court, purportedly indicating his intent to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation to the Sixth Circuit. (ECF No. 9.)
II.

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides that “[w]ithin 14 days after being

served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The
district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

2

The portions of the Report and Recommendation as to which no specific objections were
timely filed are reviewed for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes;
Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (noting that
when a party makes a general objection, “[t]he district court’s attention is not focused on any
specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless.”).
Moreover, the “failure to properly file objections constitutes a waiver of appeal.” See Howard,
932 F.2d at 508 (citing United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981)).
Plaintiff did not file a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. Even if the
Court construes the Sixth Circuit Notice of Appeal filed on July 24, 2017 (ECF No. 9) as an
objection, such an objection would not be timely filed. Additionally, the Notice of Appeal does
not raise specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, but simply lists the issues that
Plaintiff wishes to raise on appeal. (See ECF No. 9 at PageID 80.) Because Plaintiff does not
make any timely or specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the
Magistrate Judge’s report, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.
See Howard, 932 F.2d at 509.
In support of his breach of fiduciary duty claim, Plaintiff merely lists a number of
statutes, many of which are irrelevant for such a claim. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 10-11.) Plaintiff
fails to allege any specific facts that would support any such claim, either. (Id.) Plaintiff’s
apparent attempt to include a claim of theft under Count One also fails, as he merely alleges that
he tendered non-negotiable instruments but various judges failed to “zero out” his accounts.
(ECF No. 1 at PageID 8-11.) Without any specific factual allegation to support these vague
claims, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See ECF No. 1.)

3

In support of his claim of false imprisonment, Plaintiff makes vague factual allegations
without supporting statutes. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 11.) Under Tennessee law, false
imprisonment is “the intentional restraint or detention of another against his will without just
cause.” Williams v. Express Airlines I, Inc., 825 F. Supp. 831, 834 (W.D. Tenn. 1993) (citing
Brown v. SCOA Industries, Inc., 741 S.W.2d 916, 919-20 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)). Although
“actual force is not necessary to constitute a false imprisonment,” Williams, 825 F. Supp. At 834,
Plaintiff fails to show how repeated denials of his request to reinstate his driver’s license could
constitute a false imprisonment. (See ECF No. 1 at PageID 11-12.) The statutes cited by
Plaintiff, moreover, are irrelevant to a claim of false imprisonment. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 11
(citing, for example, 5 U.S.C. § 552, which contains reporting procedures for administrative
agencies).) Plaintiff further alleges that he was arrested, but fails to provide any factual
allegations that would support a claim of false imprisonment, as no allegations point to the
arrests being improper. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 7.) Without relevant factual allegations or
applicable statutes, Plaintiff fails to state a claim of false imprisonment. (See ECF No. 1.)
On clear-error review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 7) in its entirety.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), and judgment is entered for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of August, 2017.

/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4