Opinion
1:21-CV-965 (TJM/TWD)
01-21-2022
THOMAS CARSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE HACKERS, CIA HANDLER, Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
THOMAS J. MCAVOY, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This pro se action was before the Hon. Thérèse Wiley Dancks, United States Magistrate Judge, to review Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application, to review Plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel, and for an initial review of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Upon review of the Complaint, Judge Dancks recommends that it be dismissed but that Plaintiff be given leave to amend. Order & Rep.-Rec., Dkt. No. 5, at 5. Plaintiff has not filed objections to these recommendations, and the time to do so has expired.
II. DISCUSSION
As explained by Judge Dancks:
Plaintiff appears to assert hackers infiltrated his email in March 2020, and stole personal information from his computer. (See generally, Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff also asserts his “mind was hacked” and he is a
victim of government experiments and torture. Id. at 2-3. In his prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests “freedom from Google hacker and artificial intelligence and also sue google and the CIA handler.” Id. at 4.Order & Rep.-Rec., Dkt. No. 5, at 2.
After explaining what is required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, Judge Dancks recommends that “the complaint be dismissed because it is not acceptable under Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Plaintiff's claims are entirely unclear.” Id. at 3. However, Judge Dancks also recommends that “considering [Plaintiff's] pro se status, . . . Plaintiff be given one opportunity to amend the complaint to comply with the basic pleading requirements set forth above.” Id.
As indicated, Plaintiff filed no objections to these recommendations and the time to do so has expired. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the recommendations and conclusions in the Order and Report-Recommendation are not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendations in the Order and Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 5, for the reasons stated therein. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision and Order in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. If Plaintiff fails to file such an amended complaint within thirty (30) days, this case will be closed without any further action by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.