Opinion
2:24-cv-02768-SHL-tmp
12-19-2024
LISA ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. MARK NORRIS AND DALE WAYNE NORRIS, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
SHERYL H. LIPMAN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), filed November 20, 2024. (ECF No. 5.) In the R&R, the Chief Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss pro se Plaintiff Lisa Andrews's complaint “due to the frivolous nature of the allegations.” (Id. at PageID 14-15.)
A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2017). A district court reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects; the rest are reviewed for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
Andrews's deadline to object to the R&R was December 4, 2024, and no objections were filed. The Court has therefore reviewed the R&R in its entirety for clear error and finds none. The R&R properly explains that the often-illegible text in Andrews's complaint “offers no factual basis for her frivolous allegations” and is “totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, [and] no longer open to discussion.” (Id. at PagelD 14.) The Court agrees with the Chief Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the case should be dismissed. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge's R&R and DISMISSES the complaint WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.