Dylan Ford v. Rodneyse Bichotte-Hermelyn, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

DYLAN FORD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-cv-00306

RODNEYSE BICHOTTE-HERMELYN, et al., Defendnats.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendations [ECF No. 4] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, [ECF No. 1]; dismiss this action without prejudice; declare Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant; and impose a prefiling injunction.

The mail-service deadline for PF&R objections was May 26, 2026, and neither party timely filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time.

A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court adopts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court DENIES Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, [ECF No. 1]; DISMISSES this action without prejudice; DECLARES Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant; and IMPOSES a prefiling injunction as set forth in the PF&R on page 16.!

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: May 28, 2026 Z JOSEPH &. GOODW ew STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' The PF&R specifically states, and the court adopts the following prefiling injunction: Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this unnamed ghost plaintiff be declared a harassing and vexatious litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and that the Clerk pre-screen filings containing the following characteristics: (1) a pro-se plaintiff transmits a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis to the Clerk of Court by U.S. Mail; (2) the envelope bears a New York City postmark but the plaintiff lists a mailing address from a State or U.S. Territory other than New York; (3) the complaint sets forth three or fewer numbered sentences; (4) the complaint does not address why venue is proper in this Court; and (5) the plaintiff fails to provide a telephone number.

Under such circumstances, the Clerk of Court should return the complaint and application to the plaintiffs listed mailing address with a letter informing the plaintiff that he or she must either (1) pay the applicable $402.00 filing fee, or (2) transmit a statement in support of venue before the Court will docket his or her complaint. [ECF No. 4, at 16-17].