United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION  AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CASE
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation  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
. After due consideration of the Report and
Recommendation , 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.
2, 2018, Plaintiff Patrick Anthony Ribbing
(“Plaintiff”), acting pro se and requesting leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, filed his Complaint
 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.  at 3-4. Plaintiff
then filed an Amended Complaint  naming as additional
Defendants the State of Mississippi, the City of Biloxi,
Mississippi, and the Biloxi Police Department. See Am.
Compl.  at 1-2. Plaintiff cites numerous Constitutional
Amendments as the grounds for his claims. 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. . Plaintiff also
continually cites a “legal demand and notice”;
however, he did not attach or include any document matching
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
, 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.
August 13, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order 
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). Order  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 .
Magistrate Judge then issued an Order  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 . Order  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  was mailed to Plaintiff's
address of record but was returned as undeliverable on
September 24, 2018.
November 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered this Report
and Recommendation  recommending that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff's suit. R. & R.  at 6. The Report and
Recommendation  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 .
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).
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 finds that the Magistrate Judge properly recommended
that Plaintiff Patrick Anthony Ribbing's suit be
dismissed. The Report and Recommendation  will be adopted
as the opinion of the Court.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation  entered
in this case on November 19, ...