Summary
This federal district court order adopts a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation dismissing a pro se civil rights lawsuit filed by a state inmate. The court conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff’s objections and concluded that his allegations regarding the defendant and the "Illuminati" were factually frivolous and fanciful. Consequently, the court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's §1983 claims are frivolous and subject to dismissal with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2).
- Whether the district court may adopt the magistrate's report de novo.
Holdings
- The court holds that the plaintiff's claims are frivolous and factually implausible and therefore dismisses the action with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2).
Key quotations
“Plaintiff’s claims—concerning how Defendant is a member of the “Illuminati” and showed him a dream—were fanciful and factually frivolous.” (at 1)
“The Court determines, however, that Plaintiff’s objections confirm the accuracy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report: Plaintiff’s claims are factually frivolous and fanciful.” (at 1)
Factual background
Inmate Jason Lee Anderson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleged that Defendant Carol Monroe is a member of the "Illuminati" and that she showed him a dream in 2018. The court found these allegations fanciful and factually frivolous.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending dismissal for frivolous claims. Plaintiff objected. The district court reviewed the report de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and adopted the report, dismissing the case with prejudice.