Opinion
Case No. 3:06-mc-001.
February 21, 2006
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to two documents (Docs. #4 and #5-1 and 2) filed by Plaintiff Lawrence Jones on February 7, 2006 and February 8, 2006. The Court considers these documents Objections to the Report and Recommendations (Docs. #2 and #3) filed by Chief Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on January 18, 2006 and January 20, 2006. The Court in its review of the pleadings finds Doc. #2 and Doc. #3 to be identical and considers them duplicates which were mistakenly filed by the Clerk on two separate occasions. The Court ORDERS Doc. #2 struck.
Said Report and Recommendations (Doc. #3) recommends that this Court dismiss without prejudice the Plaintiff's complaint due to the fact that the document is incoherent and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff filed two documents (Docs. #4 and #5-1 and 2) which this Court considers Objections to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. #3). Although the Court makes this conclusion, these documents (Docs. #4 and #5-1 and 2) are also incoherent.
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Chief Magistrate Judge and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) this District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff's Objections (Docs. #4 and #5-1 and 2) are not well-taken and are hereby OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. #3) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.