Opinion
Case No. 2:08-cv-863.
April 7, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the objection filed by plaintiff, Gary Lee Defluiter, to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed March 19, 2009 (#25). In that Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motions to dismiss filed by three separate groups of defendants each be granted. Also before the Court is plaintiff's "Judgment Request under Rule 54(b)(c)" filed March 18, 2009.
When objections are received to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, the District Judge "shall make a de novo determination of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made. . . . "Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). After review, the District Judge "may accept, reject or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2)(B). For the following reasons, the objection will be overruled and this case will be dismissed.
The Magistrate Judge, construing Mr. Defluiter's complaint liberally, concluded that Mr. Defluiter was proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 4, a statute which prohibits the concealment of felonious conduct, and also was attempting to state a cause of action under the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. With respect to the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 4, the Magistrate Judge found that Mr. Deflutier, as a private citizen, could not assert a civil claim under that federal criminal statute. Further, the Magistrate Judge held that the complaint failed to plead any elements of a RICO claim. Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that, to the extent that Mr. Defluiter may have been attempting to assert any state law claims relating to the filing of a commercial affidavit, this Court has no power to adjudicate those claims under the scenario presented by his complaint. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge noted that other courts which have considered claims similar to this claim have found them to be completely frivolous.
In his objection, Mr. Defluiter reiterates his claim regarding his rights as a secured party creditor with respect to a commercial affidavit he filed against the defendants. This claim was considered and specifically rejected by the Magistrate Judge. As correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, other courts considering such claims have found them to be completely frivolous. See, e.g., Campbell v. Rendell, 2007 WL 211277 (E.D. Pa. January 28, 2007).
Because Mr. Defluiter's objections lack merit, this Court after a de novo review will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Mr. Defluiter's objection is OVERRULED.
Because the Court is adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the motions to dismiss be granted, plaintiff's judgment request will be denied as moot.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court overrules Mr. Defluiter's objection and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#25) in its entirety. The motions to dismiss (#s 8, 16, and 20) are GRANTED. Further, plaintiff's "Judgment Request under Rule 54(b)(c)" (#24) is DENIED as moot. This case is dismissed with prejudice.