Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Obama

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

March 22, 2017

MADIE RUTH JACKSON PLAINTIFF
v.
BARACK OBAMA United States, PRINCE WILLIAM WALES, FAINT ROBERT WALKER Judge, JULIE THEATER, BEVERLY STRICKLAND, HIGHLAND HOSPITAL DOCTORS, JAY Z, BEYONCE KNOWLES, WLOX, TONYA WYDER, OPRAH WINFREY, NESCATERICA BATES, PRINCE HARRY WALES, KATE MIDDLETON, FELICIA DUNN BURKES, MICHELLE OBAMA, RONYELLE RHODES, and WANDA SMITH. DEFENDANTS

          ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [8], OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION [9] AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation [8] of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, entered in this case on February 9, 2017, recommending that this civil action be dismissed. R. & R. [8] at 1. After consideration of the Report and Recommendation [8], the Objection filed by Plaintiff Madie Ruth Jackson (“Plaintiff”), the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objection [9] should be overruled, the Report and Recommendation [8] should be adopted as the finding of this Court, and Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff, who is pro se, filed a Complaint [1] in this Court on October 17, 2016, against President Barack Obama, Beverly Strickland, Julie Theater, Prince William Wales, and Judge Faint Robert Walker seeking $100 million in damages and relief from the federal government. Compl. [1] at 1. On November 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document purporting to be “Attachments, ” which the Court construed as an Amended Complaint [3]. This document appears to name additional Defendants: Beyonce Knowles, Jay Z, Highland Hospital Doctors, Tonya Wyder, Oprah Winfrey, Prince Charles of Wales, Prince Henry of Wales, Princess Kate Middleton, Felicia Dunn Burkes, Michelle Obama, Nescaterica Banks, Ronyell Rhodes, Wanda Smith, and television station WLOX. Am. Compl. [3] at 6. Plaintiff claims that Defendants are harassing her in various ways, including recording her, torturing her, paying her not to think, and threatening her. See Compl. [1] at 2-7. The following unedited excerpt of Plaintiff's claims against Michelle Obama is illustrative of her other allegations:

Michelle Obama pays me not to think. torture me for twenty years for crystal clear and sluices seat position line upon percept Arc of the knives and a sword from the Bible she has a hold on my right knee, leg.

         Am. Compl. [3] at 15.

         On November 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to file a brief demonstrating that the Court could properly exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Order [4] at 3. The Court warned Plaintiff that this case would be dismissed if she did not file the required brief by November 30, 2016. Id. at 5. Plaintiff timely filed a Response [5] to the Magistrate Judge's Order [4] which is peppered with the word “federal” and, although the context is unclear, suggests that the United States government is involved in Defendants' alleged scheme. See Resp. [5] at 1 (“This action starts with Barack Obama and a watchman and a Federal microphone”); at 2 (“Federal watchman enables Prince William to tortures [sic] me”); at 4 (“I believe this is an altar that needs to be examined by Federal government and courts.”).

         On February 8, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order [7] granting Plaintiff's Motion [2] to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Magistrate Judge then entered a Report and Recommendation [8] on February 9, 2017, that this case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge found that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was lacking because Plaintiff is a Mississippi citizen and at least one of the Defendants is also a Mississippi resident. R. & R. [8] at 4.

         The Magistrate Judge found that federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 did not exist because no federal claim appears on the face of Plaintiff's pleadings. Id. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the case was also subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because Plaintiff's allegations were factually frivolous. Id. at 7. On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Objection [9] to the Report and Recommendation [8].

         I. ANALYSIS

         A. Legal Standard

         Where an objection is made to a magistrate's report and recommendation, the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent that a plaintiff does not object to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In such cases, a court need only review the proposed findings of fact and recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

         The Court is unable to determine what portions of the Report and Recommendation [8] Plaintiff objects to other than that she appears to wish that her lawsuit be allowed to proceed.[1] Erring on the side of caution and assuming Plaintiff objects to all of the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and recommendation, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and the Report and Recommendation [8]. Based on the record before this Court, and having conducted the required review, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed. The Court further finds that, for the reasons stated herein, the Report and Recommendation [8] of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo entered on February 9, 2017, should be adopted as the finding of this Court, along with the additional findings made herein, and Plaintiff's Objection [9] should be overruled.

         B. Federal Subject ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.