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.

Kathy Sue Hale/Camacho v. Department of Justice of Oxford Mississippi

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

January 6, 2020

KATHY SUE HALE/CAMACHO PLAINTIFF
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF OXFORD MISSISSIPPI, et al. DEFENDANTS

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden, which recommends the dismissal without prejudice of Kathy Sue Hale/Camacho's complaint, and the denial of her motion to appoint special counsel and her motion to amend her complaint. Doc. #12.

         I

         Procedural History

         On August 29, 2019, Kathy Sue Hale/Camacho, acting pro se, filed a “Complaint for Violations of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C., 1983” against the “Department of Justice of Oxford Mississippi, ” “Department of Justice of Washington, ” Clay Joyner, Jim Hood, Judge Andrew Halworth, Alison Farese Thomas, and Steven Farese. Doc. #1. That same day, Camacho filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. #2; and a “Motion for Appointment of Special Counsel, ” Doc. #3.

         On September 12, 2019, Camacho was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. #9. Also that day, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden, finding that Camacho alleged no facts to support the allegations of her complaint, directed Camacho to “file an amended complaint, within fourteen (14) days … asserting a cognizable claim … or risk dismissal of her complaint.” Doc. #10. Seven days later, Camacho filed a “Motion to Amend Complaint for Violations of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C., 1983.” Doc. #11.

         On October 21, 2019, Judge Virden issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Camacho's motion for special counsel and her motion to amend[1] be denied, and “that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915” as frivolous. Doc. #12 at 6. Camacho filed on December 5, 2019, [2] a document titled “Objections to Report and Recommendation” but which in substance appears to reiterate her request for appointment of special counsel, and asks that “an investigation be ordered into every case [she] had opened in Hollysprings, MS” and for a jury trial. Doc. #14.

         II

         Standard of Review

         Under 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C), “[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

         The R&R recommends dismissal of Camacho's complaint because it improperly attempts to assert § 1983 claims against private persons rather than against state officers or employees, and because certain claims are either conclusory or unintelligible. The R&R also recommends that the motion to amend be denied as futile because the proposed amended complaint would not resolve the deficiencies of the original complaint. Based on these conclusions, the R&R recommends denying the motion to appoint counsel because the underlying claims are frivolous.

         In her December 5 filing, Camacho does not specifically object to Judge Virden's recommendation that her complaint be dismissed or that her motion to amend be denied but she does reassert her request for special counsel.[3] Thus, the Court will conduct a de novo review of only that ...


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.