Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-00371-MMD-VPC
10-01-2014
BILL LIETZKE Plaintiff, v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 5) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (dkt. no. 1). Plaintiff filed objections thereto on August 21, 2014 ("First Objection"), and September 24, 2014 ("Second Objection") (dkt. nos. 6 & 11). Plaintiff also filed a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (dkt. no. 8).
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Plaintiff's objection, the Court engages in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cook's Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Court grant Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that dismiss this case be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because plaintiff and defendants are alleged to be residents of Alabama and there are no allegations of contacts with Nevada. In his First Objection, Plaintiff states that in September 2008, attorneys for Defendants Walter J. Byars, filed Defendants' response to Plaintiff's case that Plaintiff alleged to have filed "in the Regional Justice Center" in Las Vegas. (Dkt. no. 6.) Plaintiff appears to claim that such response establishes sufficient minimum contact. However, filing a response to an action that Plaintiff filed in Nevada does not establish sufficient minimum contact for purposes of personal jurisdiction over defendants who all appear to be citizens of Alabama. Plaintiff's Second Objection is untimely and improper because he already had timely objected, and it also makes no sense. In his Second Objection, Plaintiff recounts alleged incidences of kidnapping in Montgomery, Alabama. (Dkt. no. 11.) Upon reviewing the Recommendation and Plaintiff's filings, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation in full.
The complaint attached to Plaintiff's second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis makes similar allegations against the same defendants for incidents that allegedly occurred in Montgomery, Alabama since the filing of this action. (Dkt. no. 8-1.)
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 5) be accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (dkt. no. 8) is also denied.
It is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk is instructed to administratively close this case.
DATED THIS 1st day of October 2014.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE