UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

JONATHAN MCADAMS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CV424-185 ) UNITED STATES OF ) AMERICA, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pro se plaintiff Johnathan McAdams has filed a Complaint. See doc. 1. He has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. The Court is satisfied with his representation that he lacks sufficient funds to pay the required filing fee. His Motion is, therefore, GRANTED. Doc. 2. The Courtproceeds to screen his Complaint, pursuant to

(e). His Complaint should be DISMISSED as frivolous. Doc. 1. McAdam’s Complaint is, charitably, hard to understand. It asserts unspecified claims, although he refers to the “Rico Act,” against the United States, the City of Tybee Island, Georgia, the City of Savannah, Georgia, and the State of Georgia. See doc. 1 at 1-2. In response to the form complaint’s question concerning the asserted basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, McAdams responds: “Everything, Federal Ding Donging, Boxing, Gang stalking, Organized crime.”

. The

factual allegations are, in their entirety: “‘Gas up’ parades on Tybee Island, Ding Donging by police and citizens, gangstalking, ‘boxing’ and federal shading [and] funding. A Grey storm of cars flooding my mothers

home with no other intention but to make me psychologically dead.”

. He does not request relief, though he states that the amount in

controversy is $100,000,000. He asserts: “Tybee Island tried to kill me 3 times and make me homosexual [and] put me on methadone against better judgment. I have lost a lot of the golden years of my life by not

being able to leave my house let alone my state. The city I live in is gassing me ‘gaslighiting’ me.”

The Supreme Court has held that “a complaint . . . is frivolous

where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). The Supreme Court has further explained that the statute authorizing proceedings in forma pauperis

gives the Court “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”

. “Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III functions.”

Procup v. Strickland,

(11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Plaintiff’s Complaint, to the extent that it is comprehensible at all, is limited to the “fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which

federal judges are all too familiar.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke,

). His allegations are not merely

facially implausible, but “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. at 33. Thus, his Complaint is frivolous. Accordingly, McAdams’s Complaint should be DISMISSED as

frivolous. Doc. 1; see also

(e)(2)(B)(i). This R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of

service, any party may file written objections to the R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.” Any

request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge. After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to

(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp.,

(11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States,

(11th Cir. 2015). SO ORDERED AND REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 22nd day of August, 2024.

haigtend lies CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA