Murray v. Mishlove

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/31/2017. 17 Magistrate Judge Duffin's Report and Recommendations ADOPTED; case DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Sandra Kay Murray)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SANDRA KAY MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-46-pp

MICHAEL MISHLOVE,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 17)
AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

On January 11, 2017, the plaintiff, representing herself, filed a complaint
against Michael Mishlove. Dkt. No. 1. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin
screened the complaint, and concluded that it was related to the claims the
plaintiff had raised—and this court had barred—in Murray v. Bush, Case No.
06-cv-781 (E.D. Wis.), dkt. no. 71. Dkt. No. 4 at 4. Judge Duffin also ruled that
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) required the court to dismiss the case for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id.
The plaintiff filed an appeal, dkt. no. 8, and the Seventh Circuit
remanded after concluding that a magistrate judge did not have the authority
to enter a final judgment if only the plaintiff had consented to having the case
heard by a magistrate judge, dkt. no. 16. On remand, Judge Duffin reissued
his order as a recommendation, explaining why he believed this court should
dismiss the complaint. Dkt. No. 17. Judge Duffin advised the plaintiff that if
1

she objected to his recommendation, she had to file her objection within
fourteen days of service of his order, and that her failure to timely file the
objection would result in a waiver of the right to appeal. Dkt. No. 17. The
plaintiff has not filed an objection, and more than fourteen days have passed.
A district judge may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations the magistrate judge made in the report. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). If a party objects to any part of the report, the district court must
review those parts of the report de novo (in the first instance, without giving
deference to the magistrate judge’s findings). Id. “If no objection or only partial
objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for
clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.
1999)
Having reviewed Judge Duffin’s report, the court does not find it to be
clearly erroneous. Judge Randa imposed a minimum two-year filing ban and a
$50 sanction. Murray v. Bush, Case No. 06-cv-781 (E.D. Wis.). On November
29, 2016, this court lifted the ban to allow the plaintiff to file other cases, as
long as the relief requested was unrelated to the Murray v. Bush claims. Dkt.
No. 71 at 2. In that same order, this court warned the plaintiff that filing
multiple frivolous cases could result in another ban on filings under Support
Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186-87 (7th Cir. 1995).
This court agrees with Judge Duffin that the pending allegations relate
to the Murray v. Bush claims in Case No. 06-cv-781, which involved the
plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Mishlove, and her employment at Maysteel. And,
2

like Judge Duffin, the court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
The court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Duffin’s August 3, 2017
recommendation (dkt. no. 17), and ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 31st day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3