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.

Ribbing v. Henry

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

December 21, 2018

PATRICK ANTHONY RIBBING PLAINTIFF
v.
WILLIAM EUGENE HENRY, RAMON CASTILLO Badge #0133 BPD, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, CITY OF BILOXI, BILOXI POLICE DEPARTMENT DEFENDANTS

          ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [11] AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [11] of United States Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo, entered in this case on November 19, 2018. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's suit be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute and abide by orders of the Court. Plaintiff has not submitted any objections to the Report and Recommendation [11]. After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation [11], Plaintiff's Complaint, the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the Order of the Court, and this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff Patrick Anthony Ribbing (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se and requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed his Complaint [1] against William Eugene Henry and Ramon Castillo, advancing claims under “Article VI” and “Article I, ” and stating that his claims were “part of a 10 year investigation pertaining to acquisitions and inquiries [and] corruption within the criminal justice system.” Compl. [1] at 3-4. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint [3] naming as additional Defendants the State of Mississippi, the City of Biloxi, Mississippi, and the Biloxi Police Department.[1] See Am. Compl. [3] at 1-2. Plaintiff cites numerous Constitutional Amendments as the grounds for his claims.[2] Id. However, he neither offers any explanation as to how his rights were violated nor any facts upon which he bases his claims. See Am. Compl. [3]. Plaintiff also continually cites a “legal demand and notice”; however, he did not attach or include any document matching that description.

         Plaintiff utilized a form complaint. Under “Statement of Claim, ” he states “see criminal complaint followed by legal demand and notice.” This appears to reference a document that Plaintiff included with his Amended Complaint [3], a “Complaint of Judicial Misconduct.” Compl. of Judicial Misconduct [3-1]. The document names Defendant Henry, cites a case and docket number, and indicates that Plaintiff was a “Party” to the cited case. Id. at 1. It provides no details regarding the alleged judicial misconduct. See id.

         On August 13, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order [7] requiring Plaintiff to answer an attached Questionnaire, which sought additional information regarding Plaintiff's claims and warned Plaintiff that his suit was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).[3] Order [7] at 1, 3. The Order was mailed to Plaintiff's address of record and required that he respond by September 7, 2018. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not returned the Questionnaire or otherwise responded to the Magistrate Judge's Order [7].

         The Magistrate Judge then issued an Order [8] to Show Cause on September 14, 2018, requiring that Plaintiff show cause by October 5, 2018, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge's previous Order [7]. Order [8] to Show Cause at 3. The Order again warned Plaintiff that the Court may dismiss his suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and cautioned that the Court could also dismiss his suit for failure to prosecute or obey Court orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. This Order [8] was mailed to Plaintiff's address of record but was returned as undeliverable on September 24, 2018.

         On November 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered this Report and Recommendation [11] recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's suit. R. & R. [11] at 6. The Report and Recommendation [11] was mailed to Plaintiff's address of record but was also returned as undeliverable on December 21, 2018. Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court since August 13, 2018. See Notice [6].

         II. DISCUSSION

         Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 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, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

         Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered all issues. The Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the opinion of the Court.

         III. CONCLUSION

         The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended that Plaintiff Patrick Anthony Ribbing's suit be dismissed. The Report and Recommendation [11] will be adopted as the opinion of the Court.

         IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [11] entered in this case on November 19, ...


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.