Leonard v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 6/16/2017. (sm, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RUSSELL DESHON LEONARD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-01347-RWS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Russell Deshon Leonard, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit against the United States of America. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has filed objections. I. Standard of Review and Reviewability The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). The Court conducting a de novo review examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc). Plaintiff’s Objections II. Plaintiff sued the United States alleging civil-rights violations and improper seizure of currency. Docket No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff provided a brief description of his state conviction for murder and his federal conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Id. at 4. In his Complaint, Plaintiff includes a history of his 17 years of incarceration in various institutions. Id. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages for false imprisonment and return of his currency. Id. at 3. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the Plaintiff’s Complaint and concluded that the lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice because the United States of America has absolute immunity in this case. Docket No. 6 at 3. In his objections, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a jury trial on the merits of his claims pursuant to the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Docket No. 8 at 2–3. III. Analysis In his Complaint, Plaintiff lists the “U.S. District Court” as the defendant. Docket No. 1 at 3. The Court is an entity existing under and proceeding pursuant to federal law, as are its orders, which are the only basis for Plaintiff’s lawsuit. The United States of America has sovereign immunity from a civil-rights lawsuit seeking monetary damages. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The federal government has not waived sovereign immunity for § 1983 claims. See Boyd v. United States, 861 F.2d 106, 107 (5th Cir. 1988). Therefore, Plaintiff does not have a claim under §1983. See Boyd, 861 F.2d at 107. Further, Plaintiff has not pled a viable claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Levin v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1224, 1228 (2013). Page 2 of 3 IV. Conclusion The Court has made a de novo review of the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this case should be dismissed for . failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as frivolous in that it lacks any basis in law and fact. The lawsuit will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1915(b)(1). So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of June, 2017. ____________________________________ ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?