Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-CV-35 (GROH)
05-18-2022
RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DNI, and NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL NSC, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Gina M. Groh, Judge.
Now before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. ECF No. 7. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for a preliminary review to determine whether the Plaintiff's Complaint set forth any viable claims. ECF No. 4. On April 1, 2022, Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R, recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 8. Magistrate Judge Trumble further recommends that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] be denied and that Ronald Emrit be enjoined and prohibited from filing any additional complaints in this Court without paying the filing fee(s) or attaching an affidavit from a licensed attorney attesting that the factual allegations provide a good-faith basis for venue within this Court.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, this Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file objections in a timely manner constitutes a waiver of de novo review and a plaintiff's right to appeal this Court's order. 28.U.S.C..' 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Moreover, “[w]hen a party does make objections, but these objections are so general or conclusory that they fail to direct the district court to any specific error by the magistrate judge, de novo review is unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.2d 723, 730 (S.D. W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, and service was accepted on April 5, 2022. ECF No. 11. To date, the Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R&R. Thus, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, presented frivolous claims and there is no basis for venue in this Court. Upon careful review, and finding no error of fact or law, the Court ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Trumble's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.
The Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. ECF No. 2. Further, Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit is hereby declared a harassing and vexatious litigant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and therefore shall be ENJOINED AND PROHIBITED from filing any additional complaints in this Court unless accompanied by either:
i. full payment of the statutory and administrative filing fees; or
ii. an affidavit by a licensed attorney in good standing in this Court or the jurisdiction in which he or she is admitted, attesting that he or she has reviewed such complaint and that the factual allegations contained therein provide a good-faith basis for venue in this Court.
Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED not to accept any pleadings from the Ronald Satish Emrit, absent compliance with the above restrictions, and is AUTHORIZED to reject and refuse to file, and/or discard any new complaint, petition, document on a closed case, or any other document submitted in violation of this Court's Order.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to STRIKE this case from the Court's active docket. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.