Fiorani v. Navy Federal Credit Union et al

Filing 12

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that with the exception of the in forma pauperisrecommendation, the findings and conclusions set forth in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation are ADOPTED as the Court's findings and conclusions in t his matter. Specifically, plaintiffs objections with respect to the magistrate judge's in forma pauperis recommendation are SUSTAINED and plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED for purposes of this proceeding. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in all other respects and plaintiffs complaint is accordingly DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)... Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 3/31/15. (gwalk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

ROSS A. FIORANI,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. I:14cvl498

V.

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

By Order dated May 12, 2000, plaintiff Ross A. Fiorani — a frequent filer of frivolous
lawsuits in this district — was "enjoined from filing future actions in federal district court

without prior leave of court." See Fiorani v. Metcalf, et al, 1:00cv619 (E.D. Va, May 12,2000)
(Order and Memorandum Opinion) (Bryan, J.). In October 2014, in an apparent attempt to avoid

such pre-filing review, plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against defendants in
the District of Maryland, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Shortly

thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia, with a ruling on

plaintiffs motion to proceed informa pauperis deferred pending review by this Court. By Order
dated November 25, 2014, the matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636, for preparation of a prompt report and recommendation addressing (i) whether
plaintiffs informa pauperis application should be granted or denied, and (ii) whether the matter
should be dismissed, either in whole or in part, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
On December 29,2014, the assigned magistrate judge filed his Proposed Findings of Fact
and Recommendations in accordance with the November 25,2014 referral order. The magistrate

judge recommends that plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and that
the matter be dismissed as fnvolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The pro se plaintiff has

filed multiple documents in response to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation,
entitled (i) "Plaintiffs Objections, Disputes and Counter-Claims Against the Court's Proposed

Findings of Fact and Recommendations" (Doc. 9), (ii) "Plaintiffs Urgent Motion to Provide
New Information Just Received, Concealed by this District on Major Class-Action Suits Filed in

Baltimore Against Navy Federal's Crimes on Illegal Repossessions and Federal Crimes" (Doc.

10), and (iii) "Plaintiffs Request for Status on Withheld, Delays of Nationwide, Relevant Civil
Suit on Civil Rights Deprivations" (Doc. 11).
As an initial matter, it should be noted that throughout his various submissions, plaintiff

alleges that the undersigned judge, as well as several other federal judges in this and other
districts, (i) have engaged in "judicial corruption" and "judicial misconduct," (ii) have harbored

"extreme prejudices" against plaintiff, and (iii) have prevented plaintiff's civil suits from being
fairly heard. These allegations lack any factual support whatsoever and must be rejected as

meritless.' Nor is there any basis for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455.
Plaintiff next objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiffs informa

pauperis application be denied. In this regard, the magistrate judge recommends denial of the
application based on possible discrepancies between the financial information set forth in
plaintiffs informa pauperis application and other allegations contained in plaintiffs complaint.
Yet, based solely on an examination of the financial affidavit, it appears that plaintiff likely

qualifies for informa pauperis status. Plaintiffs objections will thus be sustained insofar as they
pertain to the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiffs in forma pauperis application
be denied.

' It should also be noted thatplaintiff has previously filed multiple judicial complaints against
the undersigned judge with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
351, all of which have been dismissed as meritless. See, e.g., Nos. 04-12-90026 through 04-1290029 and 04-11-90011 through 04-11-90012, In the Matter of Judicial Complaints Under 28

U.S.C. §351 (4'^Cir.)

Yet, the remainder of plaintiffs prolix and largely mdecipherable contentions concerning
the merits of his claims are meritless and must be rejected. As the magistrate judge correctly

observed in the Report and Recommendation, "[p]laintifPs complaint is a disjointed list of
various federal and state civil and criminal statutes, the majority of which appear to have no

relationship to the event at issue," and the complaint "is both legally and factually frivolous."

Report and Reconunendation at 8. The magistrate judge thus correctly concluded that plaintiffs

complaint must be dismissed as fnvolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).^
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, and for good cause.
It is hereby ORDERED that with the exception of the in forma pauperis
recommendation, the findings and conclusions set forth in the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation are ADOPTED as the Court's findings and conclusions in this matter.

Specifically, plaintiffs objections with respect to the magistrate judge's in forma pauperis
recommendation are SUSTAINED and plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED for purposes of this proceeding.

The magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED in all other respects and plaintiffs complaint is accordingly

DISMISSED as fHvolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Should plaintiff wish to appeal this Order to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
he must do so by filing a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days after entry of the Order,
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4, Fed. R. App. P.

^ It should be noted that had the magistrate judge's recommendation regarding plaintiffs in
forma pauperis application been adopted, a § 1915(e)(2) dismissal would not have been
appropriate, as such a dismissal is only appropriate for cases in which a plaintiff has been
granted authorization to proceed informa pauperis.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and the magistrate judge
and to placethis matter among the ended causes.

Alexandria, VA
March 31,2015

T.S. Ellis, in

United States Di^ ct Judge