United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION  AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation  of United
States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, entered in this
case on May 3, 2017, recommending that this civil action be
dismissed. R. & R.  at 1. After reviewing the record
and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Report
and Recommendation  should be adopted in its entirety as
the finding of the Court, and that Plaintiff's claims
should be dismissed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
who is pro se and proceeding in forma
pauperis, filed a Complaint  in this Court on April
4, 2017, against Nescaterica Bates, Felicia Dunn Burkes,
Highland Hospital Doctors, Jay Z, Beyonce Knowles, Kate
Middleton, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Ronyelle Rhodes,
Wanda Smith, Beverly Strickland, Julie Theater, United States
Government, WLOX, Prince William Wales, Faint Robert Walker,
Oprah Winfrey, and Tonya Wyder. Compl.  at 1-2. Plaintiff
claims that Defendants Barack Obama, Prince William, and
Julie Theater are harassing her in various ways, including
recording her, torturing her, and wiretapping her.
See Compl.  at 6-7. The Complaint  contains no
allegations regarding the other fifteen Defendants named in
the caption. See id.
lawsuit is nearly identical to a suit filed by Plaintiff on
October 17, 2016, against most of these same Defendants. This
Court dismissed the prior suit on March 22, 2017, on grounds
that Plaintiff's claims were factually frivolous and
because the Court lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Jackson v. Obama, Civil No. 1:16-cv-379-HSO-JCG.
April 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order  in this case
requiring Plaintiff to submit a brief demonstrating that
federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists and that her
claims are not factually frivolous. Order  at 1. Plaintiff
was further ordered to demonstrate why the fifteen Defendants
against whom she had stated no allegations should not be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Id. at 1-2. The Court advised Plaintiff
that this case would be dismissed without further notice to
Plaintiff if she failed to file the required brief, and she
was further warned that she may be subject to sanctions for
filing repetitive and frivolous lawsuits, including being
prohibited from filing future pro se complaints in
this Court without first obtaining leave to do so.
Id. at 6-7.
filed a Response Brief on April 17, 2017, that did not
address the existence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Pl.'s Br. . Plaintiff attempted to comply
with the Court's Order  to explain with factual
specificity why she had sued each Defendant, explaining that
Defendant Obama is “using a remote to fill [her] with
each individual [Defendant] named on the case now. . . All
defendants pays [her] not to think for Barack Obama.”
Id. at 2.
Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation  on
May 3, 2017, recommending that Plaintiff's case be
dismissed for failure to demonstrate federal subject-matter
jurisdiction. R. & R.  at 1. The Magistrate Judge
found that dismissal is also warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the federal statute governing in
forma pauperis proceedings, because Plaintiff's
claims are factually frivolous. Id. The Magistrate
Judge further recommended that Plaintiff should receive a
sanctions warning because she has filed two repetitive and
frivolous lawsuits within a 6-month time period. Id.
at 8. Plaintiff has not filed any objection to the Report and
Recommendation  to date, and the time for doing so has
no party has objected to a magistrate judge's proposed
findings of fact and recommendation, a court need not conduct
a de novo review of it. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”). 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
on the record before this Court, and having conducted the
required review, the Court is of the opinion that the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court has reviewed and
construed liberally the allegations set forth in
Plaintiff's Complaint  and Response Brief  to the
Court's Order  requiring briefing on jurisdiction, and
agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that
Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for lack of federal
subject-matter jurisdiction. Even if the Court did have
jurisdiction, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
because they “rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
is cautioned that the Court may impose sanctions upon finding
that an individual has filed repetitive, frivolous lawsuits,
including refusing to allow the individual to file additional
pro se complaints without first obtaining leave of
Court to do so. See Tribbit v. Ward, 81 F.3d 156,
156 (5th Cir. 1996).
THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and
Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge John C.
Gargiulo entered in this case on May 3, 2017, is adopted in
its entirety as the finding of this Court.
FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, this civil action is
DISMISSED. Plaintiff is hereby warned that the Court may
impose sanctions when it finds that an individual has abused
process by filing repetitive, frivolous lawsuits. A separate
judgment will be entered ...