Opinion
Civil Action 7:22-cv-1633-BHH
02-06-2023
Latasha Boyd, a/k/a Latasha Monique Boyd, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants.
ORDER
Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Latasha Boyd's (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint filed against the United States of America and the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) on the standard court form pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). On May 31, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action without issuance and service of process.
In her Report, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege facts against the named Defendants to state a claim for relief and that Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous. The Magistrate Judge explained that “Plaintiff's complaint contains assertions that are barely comprehensible and manifestly delusional,” and the Magistrate Judge found the present action “comprised of factual allegations that are ‘wholly incredible.'” (ECF No. 10 at 7-8.) The Magistrate Judge also noted that the action should be dismissed as duplicative because Plaintiff has filed at least five prior actions in this Court raising frivolous claims similar to those raised here. (Id. at 10.) Accordingly, in her Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), warning Plaintiff that if she files future actions asserting the same allegations, the Court may direct the Clerk of Court not to accept the future action unless the filing fee is paid in full.
Attached to the Magistrate Judge's Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. Plaintiff filed objections on June 15, 2022. (ECF No. 15.) Additionally, Plaintiff subsequently filed a 64-page supplement, an amended complaint, and a motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 17, 18, and 19.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Here, the Court has thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff's objections, along with her other recent filings, and the Court finds them all to be wholly without merit. First, Plaintiff's objections are not specific. Second, Plaintiff's objections simply refer to irrelevant statements of law and then simply rehash her entirely nonsensical and delusional allegations. Importantly, nowhere does Plaintiff point to any legal or factual error in the Magistrate Judge's Report sufficient to alter the Court's analysis. Instead, it appears to the Court, as the Magistrate Judge properly determined, that Plaintiff's complaint fails to allege any facts to support a plausible claim for relief against Defendants under Bivens or any other federal statute. Furthermore, as the Magistrate Judge also properly determined, Plaintiff's complaint includes factual allegations that are entirely incredible and that clearly fall within the § 1915's definition of frivolity. In other words, the Court fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's complaint is founded upon clearly baseless factual allegations, including fantastic and delusional claims, and that a dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) is appropriate. Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff's amended complaint (ECF No. 18) suffers from the exact same deficiencies as her initial complaint and does not save this action from dismissal.
Accordingly, after review, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 10) is AFFIRMED in full and incorporated herein; Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 15) are OVERRULED; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) is DENIED; and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) without issuance and service of process. Finally, as this is at least the sixth action filed by Plaintiff raising nearly identical frivolous claims, the Court directs the Clerk not to accept any future filings asserting the same allegations without first requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee in full.
IT IS SO ORDERED.