Patrick of the family of Morgan v. Hughes et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court ADOPTS the 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley, DENIES plaintiff's "Petition for Equitable Relief" and all other requests for relief made in his subsequent filings; DISMISSES this action; and directs the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 1/18/2018. (cc: plaintiff, pro se and counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
PATRICK OF THE FAMILY OF MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-01208

LYNN N. HUGHES, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Standing Order, the action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of
findings of fact and recommendations regarding disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Magistrate Judge Tinsley

submitted his Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) to the court
on May 4, 2017, in which he recommended that the court 1) deny
plaintiff’s “Petition for Equitable Relief” and all other
requests for relief made in his subsequent filings;

and 2)

dismiss this action from the court’s docket.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
the parties were allotted fourteen days plus three mailing days
in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s
Findings and Recommendations.

Rather than filing objections, on

May 11, 2017, plaintiff filed a “plea in abatement” to the PF&R.
Rather than setting forth specific objections to the findings and
conclusions set forth in the PF&R, plaintiff’s filing purports to

“abate” the PF&R and gives Magistrate Judge Tinsley twenty-one
days to correct the PF&R “to reflect petitioner’s name `patrick
of the family of morgan’ or `Patrick of the family of Morgan’ as
the petitioner before petitioner can respond to said `FINDINGS’.”
ECF No. 21.

As Magistrate Judge Tinsley noted in his PF&R,

plaintiff’s filings herein bear the hallmarks of the sovereign
citizen movement and he concluded that those “filings lack any
justiciable basis under federal law, are patently frivolous, and
fail to state any claim upon which relief can be granted by this
federal court.”

ECF No. 20 at p.4.

Plaintiff’s response to the

PF&R only bolsters the magistrate judge’s conclusion in this
regard.

Because plaintiff has failed to direct the court to any

specific error in the PF&R, see Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,
47 (4th Cir. 1982), to the extent his filing is an objection to
the PF&R it is OVERRULED.
For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the Findings
and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Tinsley, DENIES
plaintiff’s “Petition for Equitable Relief” and all other
requests for relief made in his subsequent filings; DISMISSES
this action; and directs this Clerk to remove this matter from
the court’s docket.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to plaintiff, pro se.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2018.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3