Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-2155-MSN-dkv
09-17-2019
MICHAEL K. MATTOX, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., MEMPHIS HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for Sua Sponte Dismissal submitted August 26, 2019 ("Report"). (ECF No. 6.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff Michael K. Mattox's pro se complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and § 1915(e)(2)(iii) for seeking monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). For dispositive matters, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's proposed findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not required to review—under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge's findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See id. at 151.
DISCUSSION
The deadline to object to the Report has passed, and Plaintiff has filed no objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's complaint.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The good faith standard is an objective one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). An appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue presented is frivolous. Id. The same considerations that lead this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint sua sponte also compel this Court to conclude that an appeal by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith.
It is therefore CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal by Plaintiff in this matter would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of September, 2019.
s/ Mark Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE