Cooksey v. Cooksey et al

Filing 52

ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that pltf's claims are dismissed in their entirety as frivolous, with prejudice, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2). Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/18/16. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JAMES RAY COOKSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AIDA VALLESTRO YANA COOKSEY,
et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for
consideration and recommended disposition of case-dispositive pretrial motions. On June 10, 2016,
Judge Giblin issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the
plaintiff’s claims as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
The plaintiff filed handwritten objections [Doc. #40] to the recommended dismissal. In his
objections, Mr. Cooksey does not specify any specific portion of the magistrate judge’s findings
which he contends to be erroneous but he contends that Judge Giblin “was in general error.” See
Objections, at p. 3. Plaintiff argues that he can show that his claims are not frivolous, but he
continues to make many of the same outlandish allegations which Judge Giblin found to be without
merit originally. Cooksey continues to allege that the defendants have invaded his privacy by
obtaining a warrant for video surveillance and transmitting electronic data in “scrambled” or
encrypted form. See Objections, at pp. 2, 5. He also claims that “proving matters regarding the
sources of events in cyberspace isn’t easy.” Id. at p. 5. Cooksey remains convinced that the State

of Texas, the United States Government, and his ex-wife, along with a number of other individuals,
somehow conspired to “torture” him by breaking into his home and hacking into his personal
computer. He continues to assert that the defendants somehow collectively conspired to delete all
documents, data and the operating system from his personal computer. Id. at p. 6. After
consideration, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s objections fail to explain Judge Gibln’s alleged
errors with the requisite specificity and support. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Nettles v. Wainwright,
677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc) (“Parties filing objections must specifically identify
those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by
the district court.”) Mr. Cooksey merely continues to assert the same frivolous and nonsensical
claims that he has pursued throughout this case.
After Judge Gibln issued his report, the plaintiff also sought leave to amend his complaint.
See Motion [Doc. #43] and Amended Complaint [Doc. #44]. This would be his third pleading. A
review of the new amended complaint shows it asserts the same frivolous, incoherent allegations
as contained in all of his other filings. The Court therefore concludes that the proposed amendment
would be futile in curing the deficiencies in his prior pleadings. Judge Giblin also addressed the
futility of amendment in his report, and the Court incorporates that analysis herein.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review of the
magistrate judge’s findings, plaintiff’s objections, the record, and the applicable law in this
proceeding. After review, the Court finds that Judge Giblin’s findings and recommendations should
be accepted.

The Court therefore ORDERS that the report and recommendation [Doc. No. 38]

is ADOPTED. The court further ORDERS that the plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED in their
entirety as frivolous, with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2).
2

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

So Ordered and Signed
Jul 18, 2016

3