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.

Rush v. Mississippi Regional Housing Authority IV

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

February 21, 2019

ZORRI N. RUSH PLAINTIFF
v.
MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY IV, et al. DEFENDANTS

          ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy. Doc. #9.

         I

         Procedural History

         On November 5, 2018, Zorri N. Rush filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against Mississippi Regional Housing Authority IV, Gwendolyn King, and Brian Powers, alleging a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights under federal law. Doc. #1 at 2. The same day, Rush filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. #2. On November 16, 2018, Rush filed a “Complaint Amendment” requesting that summons issue and that the defendants turn over discovery. Doc. #5.

         On December 21, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Roy Percy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that Rush's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot. Doc. #9 at 3. Five days later, Rush filed a “Motion for Relief” in which he, among other things (1) reiterated the requests in his “Complaint Amendment;” (2) objected to the Report and Recommendation based on assertions that Judge Percy has “proven [his] bias” and “is party to a judicial misconduct complaint that arises from the same material evidence found in current recommendations;” (3) objected to the Report and Recommendation based on assertions that Judge Percy's denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis contradicts rulings made in the other cases Rush filed in this district; (4) objected that evidence in his “previously dismissed case against the defendants is clear and convincing evidence of fraud and is an answer to the allegations that this case amounts to ‘mere allegations' as cited in the report from Magistrate Percy;” and (5) “concede[d] a lack of clear understanding of subject matter jurisdiction … as a basis for requesting pro/bono assistance.” Doc. #10 at 1-2.

         II

         Standard of Review

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F.Supp.3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)).

         III

         Analysis

         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Under Bell v. Hood,

[i]n federal question cases ... where the complaint is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court, but for two possible exceptions[, ] must entertain the suit. The two exceptions are where the federal question clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of ...

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.