Mclemore v. Henry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

TELLEY L. MCLEMORE, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-45 v. APRIL C. HENRY; Defendant.

O RDE R After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's June 18, 2019 Report and Recommendation, (doc. 9), to which Plaintiff has filed objections (doc. 15). Plaintiff’s filing—which consist of eleven pages of “objections” and twenty pages of “exhibits”—fails to address any of the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation. As the Magistrate Judge clearly explained, “[p]laintiff’s mere mentioning of certain federal statutes and acts (e.g., “RICO,” the Sherman Act, and the Economic Espionage Act) and items governed by federal agencies (e.g., passports) is not enough to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” (Doc. 9 at 3). Likewise, any attempt to rely upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dead on arrival as that section “imposes liability for actions taken ‘under color of state law’ that violate the Constitution.” McDaniel v. Smith, 2009 WL 2632244, *4 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2009) (citing Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004). Here there is not even the hint that defendant was acting under color of state law. Plaintiff’s allegations remain entirely fantastical and continue to stretch credulity. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, (doc. 9), as the opinion of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.

SO ORDERED, this 28th day of October, 2019. f S pe L yA R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA