Harris v. Barie
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections to the PF&R, ADOPTS the 4 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge VanDervort, DENIES plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Leave to Make Deposit in Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2041 with Offer of Performance, Tender of Payment, and Inmate Financial Plan and DISMISSES this matter from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 9/15/2014. (cc: Plaintiff, pro se) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
CHRISTOPHER L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:13-22649
ALETA BARIE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave
to Make Deposit in Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2041 with
Offer of Performance, Tender of Payment, and Inmate Financial
Plan.”
(Doc. No. 1).
By Standing Order, this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort
for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for
disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(Doc. No. 2).
The magistrate judge submitted his proposed findings and
recommendation (“PF&R”) on August 26, 2014.
(Doc. No. 4).
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
plaintiff was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
in which to file any objections to the PF&R.
On September 4,
2014, plaintiff timely filed objections to the PF&R.
7).
(Doc. No.
For the reasons that follow, the court OVERRULES
plaintiff’s objections to the PF&R, adopts the factual and legal
analysis in the PF&R, and DISMISSES plaintiff’s motion.
1
I.
Background
In 1999, plaintiff was convicted in the Southern District
of Indiana for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and
plaintiff is currently serving a sentence of 300 months
imprisonment.
(Doc No. 4 at 1).
Plaintiff is a notoriously
prolific filer, and, rather than documenting his lengthy
litigation history, the court relies upon Magistrate Judge
VanDervort’s thorough account in the PF&R.
In the instant
motion, plaintiff suggests that he can remit a promissory note
to the court in the amount of $2,622.00 in satisfaction of his
criminal fine of $4,000,000.00.
In the PF&R, the magistrate
judge found no support for this argument and recommended that
the court dismiss plaintiff’s motion.
II.
Plaintiff’s Objections to the PF&R
Plaintiff purports to object to the analysis of the PF&R,
(Doc. No. 7 at 1), but merely resubmits his initial arguments in
favor of his motion, rather than addressing the magistrate
judge’s reasoning or conclusions.
These objections “do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s
proposed findings and recommendations” because they are “general
and conclusory.”
1982).
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.
As a result, a court need not conduct a de novo review
of such objections.
Id.
2
However, after review of the PF&R, the record, and
plaintiff’s objections, the court determines that plaintiff’s
arguments lack merit and are patently frivolous.
Initially,
plaintiff asserts that his case is one of admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction, contradicting the statement of jurisdiction from
his initial motion.
(Doc. No. 7 at 1; Doc. No. 1 at 1).
Plaintiff’s case is not a case of admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction; as stated above, plaintiff was convicted in 1999
for a violation of criminal law and the instant motion falls
under civil law.
Plaintiff’s objections continue the arguments he made in
his motion, but to no avail.
Plaintiff cites Title 28, section
2717 of the United States Code in support of his argument that
prisoners may satisfy “a warrant of attachment or writ of
execution for a fine” through a prisoner’s fulfillment of his
sentence or a promissory note.
(Doc. No. 7 at 1).
However,
this statute offers no support for plaintiff’s arguments, as it
concerns discharge of attachments in postal suits.
While plaintiff argues that the Uniform Commercial Code
applies to repayment of his criminal fine, this claim is clearly
meritless.
Plaintiff pled guilty and was convicted of
violations of criminal law.
Neither these violations nor the
associated fine have anything to do with commercial law.
The
court notes that plaintiff has tried this argument before, a
3
number of times, and has never been successful.
See Harris v.
United States, No. 09-154C, 2009 WL 2700207 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 26,
2009); Harris v. Anderson, Civil Action No. 10-3227-CV-S-RED-H,
2010 WL 4531408 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2010); Harris v. Wands, Civil
Action No. 10-cv-02735-BNB, 2010 WL 5339604 (D. Colo. Dec. 10,
2010); Harris v. Holder, Civil Action No. 1:14-0584, 2014 WL
4388263 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 3, 2014).
Finally, plaintiff argues that his $4,000,000.00 fine is
excessive and, therefore, unconstitutional under the Eighth
Amendment.
The court notes that plaintiff did not include this
contention in his motion, and, therefore, this court is under no
obligation to address it.
However, for the sake of
completeness, the court examined this argument, as well, and
finds that it also lacks merit.
At the time of his conviction,
the criminal statutes that plaintiff violated contemplated a
fine of this magnitude, and other courts have upheld the
constitutionality of the same fine.
See 21 U.S.C.A. § 841
(1999); United States v. Hernandez, 863 F. Supp. 691, 695 (N.D.
Ill. 1994).
Consequently, none of plaintiff’s arguments enjoy
any legal support and must be overruled.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objections to
Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s PF&R.
The court adopts the
factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R; DENIES
4
plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 1) and DISMISSES this matter from
the court’s active docket.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to plaintiff, pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 15th day of September, 2014.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
5
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?