United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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.
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 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,  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.
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)).
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.
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. Thus, the Court
will conduct a de novo review of only that ...